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

you Thank you. do do Thank you. Thank you.

Will the recessed housing and land use committee meeting of July 29th 2026 please reconvene. The time is 9 10 on August 10th 2026. I am council member. That counted though what I did right. Okay. I am council member Tamara Poutin and Before this meeting recessed the committee appointed me as temporary chair. The committee chair and the committee vice chair are not present today so I will continue acting as temporary chair. Members in accordance with the Sunshine Law please identify by name who if anyone is in the room vehicle or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Committee Chair Nohe Uu Hodgins is excused. Committee Vice Chair Kawanoe Batangan is excused. Council Member Tom Cook, aloha kakaiaka.

Aloha kakaiaka. I'm in our Kihei Regional Office and alone on my side Jared our EA is in the front and there's currently no testifiers in Kihei office today.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. Next up we have Councilmember Gabe Johnson. Aloha kakaiaka.

COUNCILMEMBER GABE JOHNSON Aloha and good morning Chair, Councilmember, community members. There's no testifiers for I'm alone on my side of the office here and I'm ready to work. I don't see anybody or yeah there are no testifiers here on the Lanai District Office and we're ready to work. Thank you Chair.

Thank you. And just a reminder to the viewing public that testimony was closed at the last meeting so we won't be taking any more oral testimony. We do continue to accept written testimony and I think we're up to 68 written testimony in the e-comment as of when I last checked. Next up Council Chair Alice Lee. Aloha kakaiaka. Aloha kakou. And next up Councilmember Kiani Rollins-Fernandez. Aloha kakahiaka.

Aloha kakahiaka Chair. Aloha kakahiaka kakou. I'm at my private residence alone. Kids are back at school. And there are no test oh never mind. I'm alone. Ready to work Chair.

Thank you. Next up, Councilmember Shane Sinensi is excused. We continue to send him his ohana, his staff, our aloha. And I believe Councilmember Yukile Sugimura is en route and possibly listening on the phone. So remember, we got five of us. If you're going to step away or turn off your camera, let me know before you do do that. Thank you. From the administration, we have with us the Deputy Planning Director, Anna Lillis. From the Fire Department, we have CIP Coordinator, Michael Arsuni. From the County Real Property Tax Administrator, we have Carrie Stockwell. From the Director of Water Supply, we have John Stufflebean. From OEB resources, we have Director Kapono'ai Molitau and Deputy Director Kekai Robinson, as well as Principal Archaeologist Dr. Janet Six, Archaeologist Jay Raposa, Hawaiian Language Specialist Keahi Johnson, and We have Deputy Director of Agriculture, Koa Heva Heva, and maybe if he has to step away, Mia Hunter will step in. Our Deputy Corporation Counsel today is Nahulu Nunokawa. We also have with us today the individuals we designated as resource persons, including the project consultants from Munekio Hiraga Planning Consultants, Mark Alexander Roy and Hoku Krueger. from AHL Architect Garrett Horimoto, from AECOM Engineers Diane Kodama and Jessica Samura, from Kealapono Archaeological Consulting Cultural Consultant Gina McGuire, and from Mailelani Design Landscape Architect Vivian Arita. Kaneali'i Williams is also a resource person for this meeting. Also with us is our HLU Committee staff. We have Legislative Attorney Karla Nakata, Senior Legislating Analyst James Krueger and Zach Stackhouse as well as Committee Secretary Jennifer Yamashita and NOAA Assistant Clerk Cusby. Testimonies closed. We have one agenda item on today's agenda. Bill 89. 2026 Bill 90 2026 and Bill 91 2026 which are the district boundary amendment community plan amendment and change in zoning for a six point zero nine seven acre portion of tax map key paren 2 2 dash 7 dash 0 0 7 colon 0 0 8 Hamakualoa Hawaii Haiku Fire Station HLU 17 is the agenda item. Members, as a reminder before us today, these bills are related to the proposed Haiku Fire Station project, which will be on an about 6.1 acre portion of a 27.9 acre county owned property identified as tax map key paren 22-7-007-008 in Hamakualoa, Hawaii. Bill 89 specifically would amend the state land use district classification from agricultural district to rural district. Bill 90 would change the Patia Haiku community plan land use designation from agriculture to public quasi public. And Bill 91 would change the zoning from agricultural district to P1 public quasi public district. And that's just for the 6.1. approximate portion of the parcel. We have already closed oral testimony on this item. Written testimony will continue to be accepted. Members I did check with our Deputy Council Services person and I want to run this meeting a little bit different and she said I can because I'm the chair. So I will let you know when we get into discussion. But there's a lot of information to go through. And do feel free to raise your hand if you have any clarifying questions. But I just wanted to set out some of the information first before we get into discussion. Is there anyone here that has a problem with that of the members? Okay, I did extensive research so I don't want to waste everyone's time too much with other stuff. Okay, so just want to clarify some things. From some of the testimony received, it seems as though there may be some misinformation. And so the first things that I wanted to clarify or get clarified either from our resources or someone is that no federal funds will be used. We had federal funds in a previous budget because we anticipated getting federal funds and they've been pulled from the project. And then I guess there was a thought that we were going to use some of the 1.6 billion CDBGDR funding That's not the case because the CDBG-DR funding has to be used in accordance with the plan that was sent to HUD and that's not part of the plan. So we're going to be using all county funds for this project. So there's no federal funding. Can some of the resource anyone who knows can they confirm that is accurate. Maybe Mr. Arisumi or. Okay, Mr. Nunekawa.

I can't speak to it personally, but that is what I was told from FIRE.

Okay, I do see Mr. Arizumi raising his hand. Has he been able to speak? Mr. Arisumi and you can if you can confirm for us that there is no federal funds being used.

Good morning. Yes I can confirm there are no federal funds being used.

Thank you. Okay. So no federal funds being used. Okay. So the next thing that was in testimony is testimony against the RCD 9 process. And this process here is not the RCD 9 process Recovery Coordinating Directive 9 process. This is the regular process. So we're not proceeding with the RCD 9 process. Can you confirm that one Mr. Nunekawa.

Yes, I can confirm that this is a separate process. RCD9 process wouldn't come into play unless this failed, then it would be looked at as an option, but it's a completely separate process from this one.

Okay, so this is not the RCD9 process. This is a regular process. Next, I'm sure. You can lift it up or hold it. Oh, did you turn it on?

Okay.

I understand that the RCD process isn't this process right now, but the question needs to be asked is, does it even apply if it were the process that was being implemented legally because of the requirements of the RCD that it pertains to Lahaina Recovery? And how does this project pertain to Lahaina Recovery? That's the first part. The second part is that it pertains to county owned lands and that's in question. So I understand that we're trying not to talk about it as this process but it does need to be discussed because the reality of whether it comes into play at all needs to be clarified.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- OK. Permanent Committee Chair Uhu Hodgins did put in a request for legal services on that. So we are expecting an answer in writing from Corporation Council. To my knowledge, it has not yet been transmitted formally in writing. So we're waiting on it, I guess. So the next thing I wanted to clarify, is probably with oev resources maybe dr six if you could clarify for us the hrs6e process and if um we are in alignment with that process or what needs to be done if not um i'm

Aloha, council members. I'm Dr. Janet Six, principal archaeologist for the county. This is movable. Yeah, I just have this one. So I was aware of this process way before the Lahaina fire, so I did site visits. But a 68, because they were using county funds, and so 68 is in compliance. There was an AIS done, an archaeological inventory survey, by Scientific Consulting Services, which was approved in 2010. The project footprint changed. and it's smaller now it's a smaller footprint. And I know an additional Kapa'akai analysis was done by Kealapono in April 2025 which is not required under 68 but that's just an additional courtesy analysis that was done. And there were 11 trenches put in and there was one historic property identified which was a rock wall that probably dated to around the 1940s and 50s when that house was built.

Thank you. And in the Kapa'akai analysis, I think the interview with Ms. Taylor, Hiromoto Taylor identified that there Ohana was aware of a previous, they were aware of Hawaiian burials on the property. Can you speak to that at all?

Yes, actually Mr. Williams had brought that up before. The parcel is over 20 acres. This is a six acre footprint. From what my understanding is, is they are up the ridge and there are some rock formations that have been identified. This particular project, given its footprint, will not have any real chance to impact those. And extensive trenching was done and no subsurface cultural features were identified.

And I'm not sure if you've looked at Munekio and Hiraga's diagram, but does that even include the water line?

I haven't. I'm actually on vacation. I just was over here for a birthday party and asked if I could come in. But I'm very familiar with the process, and I know that there is – I'm not sure if the AIS covered that or if that would have to be archaeologically monitored. I can't speak to that. Sorry.

The AIS, I think they said they did a – what is it called? Pedestrian something where they walked.

Yeah, you walk around and look, see what's above ground. But they did do 11 trenches, but I don't know if they did it where the utility line is going to go. And I believe that they're gonna call for monitoring. Yeah, I can't, I'm so blind. Can you pass it to me? And we have been working with the fire department and OEB has decided if monitoring is required, that we would provide monitors as well as cultural monitors from the Department of OEB Resources. And we've been working with Brad Ventura and the fire department and Mr. Arzumi.

Okay, so in the, I was in 100 page transmittal from the planning department in did see that ship the accepted the archaeological inventory study in 2010 is there a need to go back to ship the to see, are you sure you sure um well.

It's 16 years old. So oftentimes they will do an addendum to a survey because we have better technologies, different ways. Again, the water line doesn't look like it was part of the survey. So that's the first I'm aware of where it actually was going to be located. So, yeah, so we can do additional testing, especially in a place that hasn't been tested. And we did this with Kalauea Arts. We did all the testing for the building, but then they went to put the water line. So we went to Shifty and asked what would be required to do that.

Okay, um, at this point I wanted to pivot to Mr. Mark Roy. Just a moment. Is this water line that Dr. Six has in her hand, is that the particular water line that SCS did the pedestrian walk on?

Chair, thank you for the question. As Mrs. Six referenced, the AIS was accepted. There has been additional consultation completed with SHPD since. There is an additional comment letter from SHPD in recent years that came up or was issued as part of the completion of the environmental assessment process. And that was 2024? Correct, yeah. Okay, can you share that with us? We can, absolutely. We do have Mike Dago with us from Scientific Consulting Services today. SCS was the firm that completed the Archaeological Inventory Survey. What I would note before we see if Mike is available to maybe respond directly to the Chair's question, I will note that I think in the presentation a couple weeks ago, there was reference to this being quite a long planning process it's been about 17 years um i think just over actually now and there was a significant downsizing in the scope of the off-site waterline yeah i'm aware of that we can get to it um okay but right now just um inquiring about the waterline if that was the where the because um

Previously, there was going to be a water corridor through a different parcel. And my understanding is in the EA or the final EA, they decided that there was objection to that water corridor through a potential Kuleana parcel and the cost and time. And that's why they were making the water line just to East Kuiaha Road. And my question is, as that water line traverses this parcel, land grant 6553, is that the same water line that was going to also go through the separate parcels?

So my understanding is that the water line, as currently proposed, goes out to, so it goes through the county parcel, parcel 008. Yes. Out to Iskuyaha Road. Yes. There it makes a connection to. One of three water meters, right, or something. Yeah, an existing county infrastructure.

So my question is, was that the original route that the, water corridor parcel was going to go to was this route of the water line easement already contemplated by SCS back in 2009. Is it covering the same ground on the current county parcel.

FRED PODESTA I believe it does. We have Mike Dega from SCS here who can maybe clarify the limits of the original AIS if that would be OK with the chair. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Yes please.

Is that you with your camera on Mr. Dega.

Yes, good morning.

Good morning. So I'm trying to confirm the water line easement on the parcel 008 is the same path that was contemplated in the original project where the water corridor was going through different parcels.

Yes, that's correct. I can read. Yeah, we did the pedestrian survey along the entire waterline corridor. Along the east side, it was graded to East Cuyaha Road. We didn't find anything. We also surveyed along Haiku Road. The corridor was cut deep into the gulch. There was basically nothing there. The western extent emerged from Cuyaha Gulch and traversed along Haiku Road to where it met West Cuyaha Road. So yes we have we have covered that entire water line corridor with pedestrian survey.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. And my apologies members I forgot to designate Mr. Mike Dega of SES Consulting as a resource. Any objections to having him be designated as a resource.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF- No objections.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. Okay thank you Mr. Dega. I guess my next. The next person I would like to call is Mr. Rapoza.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Jay Rapoza. I'm an SOI qualified archaeologist with the OEB department. And I've been doing cultural resource management archaeology for 11 years, six of them being in the state of Hawaii.

Thank you. I've been told that you know your way around GPR and LIDAR?

Yes, the latter being more GPR.

And would those technologies be appropriate on these? I think they said Haiku clay and like that. Would those be appropriate for us to find any kind of anomalies that could potentially be Iwikupuna burials?

So yeah, so LIDAR would be effective for locating surface features, rock walls, alignments, potential depressions, house pits, habitational sites. And that would be using the LIDAR to cut through foliage, right? So you're looking for surface features. GPR, ground penetrating radar, could be used. Some sediments work. more effectively than others, but it would be a matter of manipulating the GPR receiver and post-processing. So in an area of that sediment, you could still do a survey.

That Haiku clay would be okay?

Yeah. One thing to note, though, for your question about burials, it wouldn't necessarily be burials that you would see you're looking for anomalies of any kind of deposition changes in the sediments. So they would require ground truthing to see what those anomalies may be. Some anomalies could be triggered by rocks or other roots, any kind of natural feature that could hold water, especially.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, correct. Right. Sorry about that. Yeah. So in order to do a GPR survey, you would have to have close contact with the receiver. It's a flat bottom container that you would drag over marked transects on the ground. So yes, you would need to have a relatively cleared flat area. And any areas that might be uneven or have kind of falling geography or topography would not be able to be accessed as part of that transect or survey.

Have you had an opportunity to do a site visit on this parcel?

I have not yet. Okay.

So, yes. Okay. Maybe switch it up, Dr. Six.

Jay is amazing. GPR did work in YHA. So it's really a great resource for us. It's very overgrown. I went there with Annalise when she was still with planning. Annalise Kohler as a site visit. The house was still intact. It was scheduled for demolition. Mike had done, Dr. Daga had done the AIS. And we couldn't even get out of the car. It was, you know, guinea grass. So it would need to be cleared. And then it's kind of a sloping, kind of a rolling terrain. GPR works great at places like fish ponds, Mokula, where it's flat, but the one thing is you can't, if it's lumpy, rocky, it's like a lawnmower. You need to be able to have it right against the soil. It shoots radar in and looks for recidivity, like if it's looser or more packed, and that's what anomalies will show. So I just want to say, I don't know if it would be a good candidate, but we can go do a site visit, but it's not flat terrain. It's not really.

Okay, and then if they were going to do the water line... they would need to cut the grass anyway. So I mean maybe before we do the water line we could do a GPR and if there is anomaly instead of potentially ground treating we could go around it or something.

I think clearing it and then having Jay take a look to see if GPR because it would also we don't have our own GPR yet with the county even though we have a GPR expert it would probably be Cultural Surveys Hawaii that has GPR on the island. So we'd want to have Trevor or someone come out there as a principal investigator to see if it's if it's doable. We did it at Halawa Weavey Arts, again, flat. We used 100% GPR. So GPR is great, but it's not great for every situation. So we need to do an assessment on that with the contract company that's going to do it before we get people's hopes up and then say, oh, we can't.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe if I can have Mr. Roy up again. Sorry to make you walk. Last thing before I call up Mr. Williams, we're no longer pursuing those things that you said. Now I'm ready for that rest of the information. We're not having the heliport based on community opposition. We're not having the wind turbines on community opposition. We're not having the water corridor across other separate parcels based on community opposition cost and time and things like that, if you can confirm that.

Yeah, that's right. There were comments received during the EA process for this project that resulted in the Department of Fire and Public Safety making a decision to remove certain components from the project scope. As chair summarized, the helipad was one of the substantive components that was removed from this site plan. Also, the wind turbines There were also various other components that added cost to the project, and based on the amount of time that this project has been in the planning process, there was a decision to remove some components from a cost perspective. The water line was a was a big one. There was quite extensive coordination between the Department of Fire and Public Safety, the Department of Water Supply to determine the current scope of the waterline improvements that are proposed. There was a significant reduction in the scope of the offsite waterline that went along East Cuyaha Road that Mike Daigle was mentioning all the way up to Haiku Road. Now it's purely confined, to my understanding, to the East Cuyaha Road corridor. I think it's 300 feet of water line that the Department of Water Supply has required, in addition to the connection that I mentioned earlier from the project parcel. Thank you. That, to me, summarizes most of the scope. Thank you.

And then, Mr. Williams, I'm ready for your input at this time.

Okay. So as far as the burials that are on that property, that has not been included in the AIS that has been done for that TMK, which is the primary issue, is that an AIS was done, but the burials which are marked were not part of that AIS. So it was not an adequate AIS, which means it needs to be redone. That's kind of As far as the placement of the burials it's SHPD's responsibility to to pinpoint the exact coordinates. It's not the county's responsibility that's SHPD's fiduciary duty. And then that's not also including the buffer zone of that burial whatever that is that needs to be put into the context as far as the project scope.

So my understanding is they didn't do an AIS on the twenty seven point nine parcel because they're not planning on disturbing the 27.9 acres, the AIS was specifically done on the portion that they, that were changing as well as the water line. So the six, approximately 6.1 acres is where the AIS was for because that's the portion that's being

So I met with Shifty at their office in March of this year with Linoa Kong and April Greenberg. And what I recall is being shown by April Greenberg, who is the archaeologist for Shifty, or one of them, on her phone, their archaeological records for the parcel. And it mapped out the entire 29 acres. And so the AIS was done for the entirety of the parcel, not just the 6.1 and the water corridor. but it did not include the burials that are marked into the AIS.

Okay. And Dr. Seeks, looks like you have something to contribute. Sure.

So the way an AIS works is you have a project parcel and you have a project area, right? So the AIS is for the scope of work, or we call the area of potential effect the APE. It's not done for the entire parcel. So again, 27 acres, they did not do an AIS for the 27 acres. Scientific Consulting Services were hired to do the project area. Now, if the project area changes, it gets larger, they will do an additional AIS on that. It got smaller. So I just want to be clear on that.

Okay. Members, any questions up to this point of what we're talking about?

I just want to add also an as wasn't done for the other parcels that were planned for the project. So what the water corridor and entirety was not done then so There was no as done for the TM case that were in the Gulch, which was where the controversy came up. There's so that's if whether or not as was done. There was no consistency in completing the process.

Yeah. So Mr. Diga mentioned the pedestrian survey, but it's kind of a moot point at this point in time because we're not going into those other parcels. So no questions from the other members at this point. You guys are following along with us. Okay. Don't. be scared to raise your hand. Okay I see a hand raised. Member Rollins Fernandez any comment question or clarification to this point in the proceedings.

ELLIE WILSON- Mahalo Chair. I just want to clarify what Mr. Williams is saying. So you said that an AS wasn't done in the other areas because it won't be that's not the project area or. But Mr. Williams is saying that there wasn't anything done for like where the water line is going to be? And that's in the other parcel too?

So initially the project was going to have a water corridor through different TMK or Kuleana lands. And Mr. Dega mentioned that he did a pedestrian survey of that area in 2009. I'm just saying it's kind of a moot point because the water line is contained to this 008 parcel as of today.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. Mahalo for that clarification.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Sure thing. Next I would love to hear from. Yes. Member Johnson. Sorry I didn't hear. MEMBER JOHNSON. Just a point of information.

I don't see your camera on. I don't know what happened but in my viewing I don't see you. I don't know if it's a thing for Sunshine Mall.

I see her.

All right, never mind then.

Okay. Sorry. At this point, I would love to hear from somebody on from Department of OEV resources. You guys can decide amongst yourself about native tenant rights to that were never extinguished. how that can be addressed, or what it means, all the things.

Aloha me. Mahalo Chair for the question, just more so for clarification in terms of needed tenant rights. Do you have any specific?

Well, we know that you know, subject to the rights of native tenants were included in the original land commission awards. And there is also, it's a 27.9 or 28, roughly 28 acre parcel, which if this actions goes through approximately 21 acres will still be in agriculture. and less than fully developed. So what kind of native tenant rights, like, could we potentially partner with you folks, Department of Ag, to recognize, like, native tenant agriculture? Yep.

Mahalo nui for the clarification, Chair. So here's my take from a cultural point of view in terms of aina, in terms of the land, in terms of the actual usages from a kanaka perspective. I know that there was some talk about the usage of utilizing aina as a wahi uhonua kind of concept where where the concept of having a land base that could care for ohana, that could care for kānaka in different facets. The mindset behind a Puʻuhonua kind of ideology is that those concepts were set by aliʻi. They were set because certain kulana or certain kuliana were not always cared for, for the kanaka. And so kanaka took the time to either not abide by and found refuge in Pu'uhonua. Doesn't mean that a Pu'uhonua doesn't have actual kaina or references to certain kinds of law. uh, within the Pūhonua, uh, it just means that it is a, a, a place of respite, a place of peace, uh, and a place of growing. Um, and, and then when Makaukau, those folks can then find themselves back into society at the, at the time. Um, that is the general overview of Wanuahi of a concept of a Pūhonua. Now, um, Now Puʻuhonua were strategically placed. They were placed in areas that weren't always visited by common folk or the rest of the Makaʻainana. They were areas that were off limits to others. And so those kinds of concepts and ideology doesn't necessarily exist in this particular world today that we live in. However, the mana'o behind is something that could be considered and should be at least looked at from a kanaka lens. That is something that we're going to uplift. Then I believe that the Department of OEV and Ag Department, is that the other one? Colony Ag. Colony Ag. you know, having a good conversation about what that looks like and to uplift that cultural mindset first and foremost. And then how do we make that fit in today's particular society? Well, you know.

Thank you. And in terms of growing of subsistence crops, like... Does, for the native tenant use, does it have to be like all canoe crops, traditional lauhala, or could we do like cucumbers also?

I think we live in a time and a place where mea'ai is mea'ai. You know, in terms of food and in terms of food crop, the more that we can continuously grow and be secure in the food that we have here in Maui, I think is, is Maikai no matter if it's food crop or or native crops that we're looking at.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. Is Director Stoffel being on the line. Or somebody from the Water Department. And staff can we enable. I still see Member Rollins Fernandez but just pieces of her body so she's still on. um director stuff will be if you can unmute yourself and identify yourself or hello hello DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay Deputy Lillis are you familiar with the water situation I read in from Diane something that there's three water meters on the process. Are you or should I ask Diane or Ms. Director Stuffilbene. DIRECTOR STUFFILBENE We would likely defer.

Thank you chair for the question. We would likely defer that to the water department or to the consultant for this project.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. If there's somebody named Diane from AECOM or Director Stufflebean, we'd love to hear from you.

Hi, this is Diane Kodama from AECOM.

Hi, sorry, I forgot your last name. I read someplace in the planning commission meeting minutes that you said that there's three separate water meters.

Yes, there'll be three water meters. And it's still in the process of being approved.

Okay. And one of the water meters is specifically for the building to provide water for the fire station. Is that correct?

Yes.

And it has sufficient fire flow for that. And then there would also be a 40,000 gallon tank on site for supplemental, like during low pressure or something. Do we know the capacity of the other two meters like if we were going to keep the 20 acres in agriculture could one of the meters be dedicated to doing the agriculture on the other 20 acres for native tenants subsistence living.

FRED PODESTA. Yeah. Thank you Chair. So my understanding is that the the two meters are designated for the parcel on which the fire station is being built. Here's Jason here who's also who's been involved with this. So the question is, Kent, is there capacity from the meters for agriculture on the rest of the land? And I believe the answer is no, right?

Yeah, no, I don't think any other use besides the fire department development is anticipated for those meters. Right.

Okay, can you identify him? You're speaking to and will designate him as a resource.

Hi. Jason Miyabuchi, one of the district engineers for the Department of Water Supply.

Members, any objection to designating Jason Miyaguchi or Bucci? Miyabuchi with a B. Miyabuchi as a resource to the committee? No objections. Okay, go ahead. So there's three water meters. Two water meters were for the parcel, that 6.1-acre parcel.

So right now, currently serving that property are two 5-8-inch water meters?

Two 5-8, not three, because I thought Ms. Kodama said there were three.

So the reservation for those meters for that property occurred all the way back in 2004. So at the time, they did reserve three meters, the previous owners, which they were going to subdivide. But at some point after that, the county bought the property and it was designated to be for the fire department. So when the meters were actually installed back in 2018, I believe, the way the county code reads is if you're not gonna subdivide, we cannot give you more than one meter, right? So I think that what I, if I can remember correctly, what happened with the other two meters was they were just not used. So that's why the fire department only got the one brand new meter off the list. And they already had an existing five eighth inch meter for the property. When we, when we ran the new lateral, we ran the new lateral only for those two meters.

Can we add more for agricultural purposes? Add more meters?

Yes. I mean, the way the code reads right now.

If we were to CPR out the 6.1 approximate acres, could we add more?

No, everything is dependent upon the priority list. So I would have to say no at this point. Okay.

How do we get to a yes?

Well, the issue is the meter list, which is established as in chronological order. So if there's a new request, we couldn't really take it right now because it's not on the meter list.

Right now it's closed. It's been closed since 2013. So over the past few years, we've just been offering and offering, but until a few years ago.

We can't go back to our 2004 placement? No.

So that came off the list already, and those meters, those two other reserve meters, they're not for a better term gone. The offer, I mean.

So what is the total capacity for the two 5A's meters on a daily basis?

Um, I would have to go back to our file. I'm sorry, I don't recall what we did.

Okay. Staff, if we can send the written transmittal for that, what the total capacity is for the two 5H water meters.

Sorry, I think we might have had a record for the one off the list. The existing one, yeah, I don't know that we have anything off that. It's just whatever they were using at the time, I guess.

I believe the existing one was confirmed to have enough sufficient fire flow for the fire station. Is that right, Mr. Arisumi?

The existing two meters are for the fire station, correct. And then there is a third meter for the water tank itself.

Okay. the plans that are currently in maps right now they show the two domestic services to go to feed the fire department development there's also another lateral that's being installed for the for the fire for the on-site fire system we call it a fire line um with a backfill preventer on it um that that might be the one that's serving the on-site tank i'm not sure i'd have to dig a little bit more those are the few services okay

That's what I meant when I asked about the three meters. But thank you. We'll send a transmittal to find out the capacity of the three meters. Thank you. So. Everybody OK? Member Rollins-Fernandez you don't need a recess right?

SPEAKER 19- Yeah. Can I get a quick recess please?

SPEAKER 20- How much minutes would you like? Five minutes? Okay. So we'll come back at like 10.05. This meeting will be in recess until 10.05. Well the Housing and Land Use Committee meeting of July 10th returned to order. The time is 10.08. The next resource I would like to call on is from Department of Ag. Is that Ms. Hunter. Are you available to turn on your microphone.

SPEAKER 10- Aloha. Are you able to hear me.

SPEAKER 11- Yes we can hear you. Is this Ms. Hunter.

SPEAKER 12- Aloha Chair. Good morning guests.

I just wanted to know, you know, it seems as though the water situation is a little bit questionable. Would Department of Ag potentially be able to make some agriculture happen here, like with water catchment or excess water from one of the three water meters for the remaining acreage?

Speaking on behalf of Deputy Director Halahaba today, he doesn't have a particular comment at this time. We're open to more conversation with Department of OEB and Water. I know there was some confusion around that this morning listening in. I don't want to say that we can do it without Director's immediate approval. So just speaking on behalf of them to say we're open to it. I hope that answer can be sufficient.

Have you seen water or agriculture be sufficiently done with catchment water?

Yes, it can be done. We also operate with catchment at KAP, so it definitely can be done with catchment.

Thank you. Okay. So at this time, I'd like to recognize member Sugimura Aloha Kakahiaka.

Good morning. Sorry that I'm late. Thank you.

Okay. So just to catch everyone up that just arrived, no federal funds. The water corridor is staying on this parcel. We have followed the SHPD process to date. Dr. Six can you share with us about the 100 percent AIS process that would be different if for the water line and the potential to put since there were no trenches done on the water line it was just a pedestrian survey how we could treat it so that it's not an inadvertent fine if during the installation of the water line easement we don't want to run into iwi kupuna?

Yes I can help clarify that. So what's being required right now my understanding would be archaeological monitoring and fire asked us if we could help and we can. So in 100% AIS, it's not 100% of the parcel, it's the project area. So say the corridor for the water, they would come in and clear it. And if it's not good for ground penetrating radar and decide not to go that route, then we could do 100% AIS, which means we basically monitor, but anything that's encountered is inventoried. It's not inadvertent because we do have native testimony that there are eevee there. We want to take that very seriously. So this would be a way that wouldn't take any additional time, but it would hopefully ensure the lineal and coastal descendants that we have, you know, we're going to take in our time. And again, a lot of times you'll see a soil color. It doesn't mean you have to impact the eevee because they're likely deeper than the waterline. But when you see, whenever you dig a hole and put dirt back in it, it'll be a different color. So we look for soil stains. And if we found that, we would look at the void cyst there's oval shape egg shape that tends to be pre-contact native Hawaiian burials rectangles or coffins post-contact but we have ways of determining that as we go so that would be my recommendation to not have any inadvertence because that area was not tested there was a pedestrian survey would be to do the 100% AIS unless I mentioned OEB would be doing that and um

I'm not sure who I would need to ask, but if we were to come on what we believe could potentially be an EV kupuna, we can move the water line easement to not impact it?

Absolutely. That would be the intention is that you would not just go through it and you would go ahead and redesign.

Mark Roy, is that your understanding, as well as the project consultant, if there were a suspicion of iwi kupuna impaction, we can move the water line.

Thank you for the question, Chair. I'm not really considered a qualified expert for archaeological purposes, but we do have Mike Dager from SCS. I think he could respond directly to that question.

No, it's not necessarily about archaeology. It's about if we have a find which wouldn't be an inadvertent find, it is possible to reroute the waterline. That's all I'm asking, not about archaeology. It's just the waterline.

It's maybe tree feet. We can move it. So from an engineering perspective.

Okay. Engineering perspective.

Yeah, I believe so. I mean, I'll look to the design team. AECOM is the civil engineer for the design of the water line. If there is a concern, we can share it. But I believe if obviously if something was found, there would be.

Who's the engineer person you said again?

Diane Kodama.

Oh, okay. Miss Kodama. Is that a, that is what we can do. We can move the water line. Yes, we can move the water line that you'd have to do some additional calculating and but yeah it can be moved. Okay around yeah. And i'm Dr six, followed by Mr Williams.

We did this with the parking garage. So we did redesign every time we did impact or locate Evie, we did redesign the project. So we do have a precedent there. And it's not a water line, but still, it's normal to preserve in place, not disturb them and change your design. Okay, so you've done this before.

Mr. Williams, you had something?

OK I apologize but I I need we need to backtrack to the prior question about native tenant rights because I'm the native tenant in the room. So first I want to talk about Pu'uhonua and I agree with Kapono'ai generally. I'd like to add that Pu'uhonua were established by Kahu and my family line my great great great great grandmother Keauli from Niihau her line back to Wailua Kauai ties directly to Kaililao Kekoa, who resided in the Haola Heiau. Haola on Kauai is a Pu'onua, and the kapu of Kaililao Kekoa from her mother Kapu'okalani was called Kapu'akua. That kapu translates to the kapu of the gods, and what it allowed for is the person that had that kapu to either grant life or death upon the word. They allowed to give clemency for those that broke kapu. And that is the kapu that still resides in our blood today. So I just, I say that first because I come from a lineage of Puʻonua directly. As far as the native tenant rights, the other part we need to understand is that native tenant rights are very, very specific set of rights. They're not general to everybody. They're not the same as traditional customary practices. They're a very specific set from the kingdom period. So the native tenants were those that applied and resided, that resided in the ahupuaʻa at the time of the Great Mahele and whether there's documentation whether they put in a land claim or they hadn't put in a land claim or they're in other people's testimonies those were the native tenants of that ahupua'a and their descendants are the native tenants and those native tenant rights apply through that line. So it's not that it applies to everyone who's Hawaiian in a specific ahupua'a. It is the authority of those who have the native tenant rights in that ahupua'a to extend under their rights or our rights permission for others to come into our ahupua'a and to reside. That is that's part of our rights to do so. And that's different from traditional customary practices. It's connected but they're very distinct at the same time. So again the reason why I am a native tenant of Kuiaha is not because not just because I'm Kanaka Maoli. It's not just because I reside in Kuiaha. It's because I descend from a land commission awardee from the Great Mahele. who was a native tenant of Cuyaha. And as you folks know Shifty has verified that genealogy Maui Island Barrier Council has verified that genealogy and recognized me as a descendant. Those communications have been forwarded to Department of OEB Resources by Linoa Collin who's the burial specialist for Shifty. On that note of native tenant rights it's this is actually very critical because this pertains to whether or not the county actually has legal standing through the land patent. The land patent 6553 to Florence Wood doesn't have standing because Florence Wood was not a native tenant and she has no native tenant rights in the parcel that already had a title established. So I'm going to read from part of my testimony because I'm trying to help you folks as best as I can because there's very very real legal ramifications that will affect this county and I'm trying my best to be very patient and help you folks.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you.

I'm just going to read this section. So this is point two of my written testimony I submitted this morning to you folks. That's on Granicus. Florence Wood was not a native tenant of Cuyahoga and had no reserved native tenant rights. Collectively, the May 27, 1850 Prairie Council resolution, the Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong, and the Land Commission Award 9971 upon the 22, William Pitt Lele Ohoku reserved native tenant rights of Cuyahoga. The May 27th 1850 Privy Council resolution concerning William Pitlaleo Hoku's estate states quote provided however that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as interfering with the rights of the land commission to settle all disputes that may exist as to the title or bounds of any said of said lands and further provided that nothing therein contained shall be construed as interfering with the rights of native tenants in said lands end quote and that's in exhibit F. The Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong states in English, quote, rights of common natives in the above land reserved, end quote. And in Olelo-Hawaii states, quote, . End quote. Exhibit I. The Land Commission Award 9971 upon the 22 to William Pitt-Leleohoku states, quote, . End quote. Exhibit L. These reservations of native tenant rights apply to land commission awardees such as Malopi, who is my ancestor, However do not apply to Florence Wood and subsequently do not apply to the land patent 6553 to Florence Wood. And the reason is because indeed from Florence Wood to M.G. Rodrigues dated December 7th 1938 and located in labor for 1486 pages 278 through 279 Florence Wood resided in the city of Palo Alto County of Santa Clara State of California Exhibit M. A 1930 census for the city of Palo Alto, county of Santa Clara, state of California, identifies that Florence Wood was age 52 in 1930, born approximately in 1878. Color and race was marked W for white, that she was born in California, that her father was born in South Carolina, and her mother was born in Pennsylvania. And that's in exhibit N. Florence Wood was a white woman from California was not a native subject of the Kingdom of Hawaii had no Kuleana land claim registered in Kuiaha with the land commission during the Great Mahele appears in no testimonies for land commission awardees in Kuiaha did not descend from a native tenant of Kuiaha at the time of the Great Mahele and ultimately was not a Kanaka Maoli or native Hawaiian. Hence Florence Wood was not a native tenant of Kuiaha and had no reserve native tenant rights. Land Patent 6553 to Florence Wood created in 1916 has no valid claim within Cuyaha as all disputes with regards to title were already settled by the Land Commission during the Great Mahele in the 1850s under the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The subject property has been retained under the original instruments that grant the title which are Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong Land Commission Award 3336 upon a 5 to Nalopi and Land Commission Award 9971 upon a 22 to William Peleleohoku which from our last meeting The Department of Corporation Counsel was clear that the title policy for the county for TMK 227007008 policy number 27-31-92-546457 with Fidelity National Title Insurance Company which is Exhibit A. The Corporation Council stated quote identified the policy identified the county's interests as derived from grant 6553 to foreign school by the territory of Hawaii and it identified that as the original instrument that granted title end quote. Nothing in that title insurance policy states that as quote the original instrument that granted title. It does state this policy does not insure against loss or damage and the company will not pay costs attorneys fees or expenses which arise by reason of number two any facts rights interests or claims that which which are not shown by the public records and quote Exhibit A. So the Department of Corporation Council's statement at our last meeting functions as an admission that the county does not claim interest right from any instrument that granted title that predates the creation of the land patent 6553 Florence Wood. That statement duly functions as a department's concurrence with prior written statements by the Department of Corporation Counsel among several of the departments that quote, the agency does not currently possess any records that correspond to your description of the records that you are requesting, end quote, which was from Department's April 7th, 2026 response to a Weeper Republic's request where I asked specifically for a chain of title from the land patent 6553 back to the Royal Patent 383. So what I'm trying to convey to you folks is that Your attorneys for the county have already admitted you only claim up to the land patent and that's it. Nothing else prior that has existed for over 50 years prior to that time. And the insurance policy for the county will not cover if a litigation happens and those claims get brought up. The native tenant rights are important. I am the native tenant in the room. I have. things that I have so much documented in this testimony that and that's not the only reason why that land patent doesn't have standing. It doesn't have standing also because the Newlands Resolution from 1898 is very very specific about what lands were transferred over to the United States of America. And those are public lands government lands and crown lands. The entire Ahupua'a of Cuyahoga does not did not qualify as those and I have the exhibits for that. I have the exhibit showing that it wasn't government lands. I have it showing that it was the Leo Hokus lands. I have the Privy Council resolution where it affirmed that. I have the Royal Patents that show Kamehameha III the Crown signed away his interest to Kuiaha. East Kuiaha West Kuiaha signed it away. They're not government lands they're not Crown lands. There are land commission awards those are private property. Everything is set already. The land patent 6553 does not have standing.

Can you clarify for us your understanding of the Mahele process of how the Mahele process went.

My understanding is there were Kanaka who resided in the Ahupua'as right. And depending on this particular native tenant some resided there for longer periods of time. Some of the Ali'is claim whole swaths of the Ahupua'a. The native tenants in the Ahupua'a had A lot of actually a lot of the testimonies very specifically say that that claimant had title and it was never disputed. Right. So even before they were issued a land commission award and royal patent they already had title to the land. And that's in all the majority of the testimonies will specifically say that land commission award 3336 to Nolope does have that as well. So each claimant was required to go to the land commission to register their claim not apply for the claim because they already had it. They went to register it to secure it and to ensure that the government of the kingdom would sign over their interest to that tenant. So they had to have their claim. They had to show that they actually resided there. They worked the land. They may have had lo'i. Some of them say, you know, lo'i, kalo, wala, patches, kula. They might have a house lot. Just depends on the very specific case by case. They had to have witnesses to come and testify on their behalf to say yes that person's claim is true. I know where his lands are. I know the boundaries of his lands. It is true that his title has never been disputed. That kind of general language is a lot of times in the testimonies. There's a native testimony. There's a foreign testimony in English. So there's no question about translations. The Land Commission had the responsibility to go through all of the disputes between because in some situations you have different tenants both fighting for the same parcel. They had to settle the disputes and then issue a land commission award to the awardee. And that is what the title is. And then the Crown would issue a royal patent to relinquish the Crown's claim and make it an allodial title. And so that's kind of like a good general overview.

Yes that. Pretty much matches up. I consulted with Kepa Malley of Kumupono Associates. The steps that he went over is one. So this is around 1846 through 1855. One registration of claims for land commission awards was required. In this, Native tenants needed to ask for land that they actively worked and lived on. Two, testimony on individual claims by supporting witnesses was further required as evidence of a particular claimant's residency and cultivation of the land. Three, Mahele Award Book. Upon confirmation of an individual claim, a survey of claimant's aina was required. Then four, Royal Patents on Land Commission Awards Kuleana final transfer of title to the individual awardees was given once a nominal payment for the INA was made or waived along with and covering the services of surveyors made. Upon receipt of the payment a Royal Patent was issued. So. The meets and bounds for Nalopi 3 3 3 6 and 2 1 4 9 were recorded and covered the five plus acres as described.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Are you asking me a question for clarification or sorry.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- If we agree on those statements of fact.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- I agree. Yes. But I would also include that there is a total of six Apana that belong to Nalopi. And there's we can go into that deeper to understand that if we need to. But there is a total of six five of them in Kuiaha one in Pawella and that's in the testimonies and it's on the land commission award document. So there's one that's mapped which is the Opana 4. That's what's physically mapped and on the drawing and that's what Kīpuka shows generally and if you compare the mapping of a panel 4 on the actual land commission award to how Kipuka represents it and you put them in the right orientation to match the orientation it's very clear that the shapes are not the same. So and I say that because there is a disclaimer on Kipuka about the meets and balances as far as how Kipuka represents them. And that's for every kuleana parcel. In this particular case it's very easy to see you compare the two side by side and say yeah that the shape's not exactly the same. So that's that as far as the APANA 4. But as I said last meeting the APANA 5 is what is very important to understand because APANA 5 expands a very large stretch of land. And I can I have the documents and I can explain them to you folks.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. So at this time I guess I'd like members to look at grant a case number five and. If we can share this with the resource.

Hello.

So in my consultation with Mr. Mally of Kumu Pono Associates, he did email Helu 2194 Palapala Silanui from Book 9, pages 433 to 434.

Chair? Yes. Are you going to be like trying to come to an agreement or with Mr. Williams? Is that what the purpose of this is?

Yeah, I would love to find a solution forward that works for everybody's needs.

Okay, but at some point we need verification from our Corp Council. And would that require executive session?

Depending on what you're looking to do, probably, I'd have to know more about what sort of conclusion you were looking for.

Well, if the plan here or the objective today is to work out some kind of compromise, let's say, and therefore a condition on the property, wouldn't we have to consult you first to hear the other legal explanation?

Yes probably and it would probably require some additional research into depending on what you are looking to do what sort of conditions you are looking for.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Because I'm just wondering if we should start to go into executive session to to hear the other side because actually we're just hearing you and him. You know what I mean.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Yeah as is my right as the chair. I guess at this time Mr. Nunekawa Did you want to intervene? Is your understanding of the Mahele process similar to what Mr. Williams and I described?

MR. It's similar, but I think that what we were saying related to the title policy isn't exactly what was being represented. What we were saying regarding the title policy is that the title company determined that that land patent was the original instrument. They didn't find any evidence of 383 applying to that specific parcel.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. I guess I would further clarify that. So I think William Pitt Lele Ohoku the first was granted This land, I think in February of 1848, is that correct?

He registered his claim to the Aupua of Kuiaha on February, I want to say, was it 14th? Sorry, one second. Yeah, February 14th, 1848. So that's when he registered his claim with the Land Commission.

Mr. William Pitt Leleohoku I registered his claim to A number of lands under land commission award 9 9 7 1 February 14 18 48. He subsequently passed away December that same year that same year later that year October December ish. And then as was previously stated the lands went to his wife and son, Ke'ele Kolani and John Pitt Kinauleleohoku. Then, and it seems a little shady, but the probate guy was able to purchase 360 acres for a dollar, which is East Kuyaha.

August 14, 1850. So his wife, so the wife of Lileo Hoku sold to Armstrong because Armstrong was involved with the Ali'is. He was the administrator for the estate of Lileo Hoku. And so Kealikolani is the one, the wife, the widow wife who sold to him for a dollar.

Sold to him for a dollar. Later, he transferred the deed to S. Porter Ford. who later transferred the deed to Katherine Lee, wife of First Supreme Court Justice of Hawaii, William Little Lee, no relation to anyone on this council probably, different Lee. And then Katherine Lee, who was William Lee's wife, is as far as we know on paper, William Lee passed away 1858.

I don't recall an exact date. I have his probate. And what I do recall is in his probate, William Lee's probate, there is a will where he quit claims, and it says the Lord quit claims, the rights that he would have had from Catherine and Lee.

But Catherine and he didn't pass away on the island.

Yes, yes.

Upon William Lee's death, Catherine Lee went back to New York married the popular science founder dude and liquidated her assets. So

And I also interject real quick. Prior to Richard Armstrong Deeding to Porter Ford was the awarding of land commission award. Well let me actually backtrack further. Was the Royal Patent 383 from signed by Kamehameha. So that was given and there is the notation see the original papers for deed from Ke'elikolani to Lima'ikaika Armstrong. Following that Royal Patent issuance then was Land Commission Award 3336 again with all of the apana. Following that was land commission award nine nine seven one to upon a 22 to William Pitt Lileohoku. And then was the Deeding from Armstrong forward.

So when I looked up upon a 22 there was no Royal patent.

Correct. And the reason is because the Privy Council resolution from 1850 explicitly on Lileo Hoku's estate gave the authority to and this is not the exact language you can refer to it in exhibit. Exhibit F in my written testimony. It authorized the issuance of royal patents to Kelly Colani and John Pekinau. So they were allowed to have a royal patent. But because Kelly Colani sold his kuiaha to Armstrong, that step was not needed. And so that's why Royal Patent 383 has the notation back to Kelly Colani's deed to him, because it's connecting the Royal Patent 383 under Richard Armstrong's name to the deed from Kelly Colani to the Privy Council resolution that authorized her to have a royal patent. So it's even though Leleohoku doesn't have one under his name his estate for Kuiaha is directly linked to the Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong as well as Royal Patent 217 to William Elliott which is West Kuiaha.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. And and you Olelo. OLELO OLELO- Aye. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. So looking at the Palapala Silanui for Helu 2194. At the bottom of page 433. It says. Yes, I can see that.

And then on the land commission award which is that third document which is predates the Royal Patent issuance it says And as the process was

It's not a deed until the Royal Patent was issued?

No the Royal Patent is just takes away the Crown's claim to that property. So the title is actually the Land Commission Award. And I I can pull up my laptop and go find a federal case where they actually referred to Kingdom Law about that whole deal. So the Land Commission Award is the title. The Royal Patent 383 is the relinquishing of the Crown's claim to those lands. So on the one part, you have the Royal Patent to Nolopi, right, which is his particular claims. So upon a four is the Crown relinquishing that. But Royal Patent 383 stretches the entirety of East Kuyaha. So the Crown relinquished that as well, which is to the Leo Hoku or to Richard Armstrong, which his title or his document goes back to. Lile'ohoku's estate and in Lile'ohoku's land commission award there is the language which is again the native tenant rights which means that this set of documents is supersedes Lile'ohoku's estate's claim. Because his estate reserved our rights for everything.

Yes. but we're under American law at this time.

Yeah, and American law still follows Kingdom law. There's a lot of HRS codes that refer back to Civil Code 1859. And if we're going to talk about American law, again, I can refer back and I can quote it for you folks because the Newlands Resolution is actually very key to all of this. So the Newlands Resolution. This is actually my first point that I want to explain as to why the land patent 6553 to Florence Wood has no standing. So the first point is that the Newlands Resolution 1898 did not transfer the subject property that we're speaking of to the United States and subsequently the territory of Hawaii had no legal interests. The resolution states, quote, whereas the government of the Republic of Hawaii having in due form signified its consent in the manner provided by its constitution to cede absolutely without reserve to the United States of America all rights of sovereignty of whatsoever kind in and over the Hawaiian lands and their dependencies and to also cede and transfer to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, government, or crown lands, public buildings or edifices, ports, harbors, military equipment, and all other public property of every kind and description belonging to the government of the Hawaiian Islands, together with every right and appurtenance thereunto pertaining," end quote. And that's exhibit C in my written testimony. You guys can see the Newlands Resolution. That is the epitome of American law, I suppose. It did not include private property. And that's why I keep showing you folks this sign because the ahupua'a of Cuyahoga is private property. And I can go further into that. And because Cuyahoga which is West Cuyahoga and East Cuyahoga was private property at the time of the Newlands resolution the subject property where folks want to build this fire station is still private property because it did not fit into the requirements of the Newlands resolution which was public government crown lands. So, and I can, I'll go into those more.

Did you go to the Bureau of Conveyances to see who Catherine Lee liquidated her land to?

I have not, but as I explained with the native tenant rights, it doesn't matter to us because our rights are not extinguished. Correct. And so.

So my understanding is to fund the popular science magazine She liquidated her assets in Hawaii. So I'm not sure who she liquidated her assets to, if it was Haiku Sugar Company, if it was Back to the Crown or whom, but I guess that is what it hinges on. Mr. Nunokawa, do you know what it means with the title insurance? Like, would the insurance... allow for a lawyer to be paid to go look to who she liquidated her property to?

It would depend on if it went to a lawsuit. And we believe that even with the exceptions listed, the title policy should still represent if the county brings a claim related to, because the title company didn't identify any 383 interest in that property, which would seemingly be part of a public record. So that exclusion wouldn't necessarily apply. They determined that our interest was back to that land patent and that they didn't identify any previous interest from 383 on that specific parcel.

So then the insurance would cover a lawyer to defend against a lawsuit and do the research at the Bureau of Conveyances on what happened after Catherine Lee liquidated her assets.

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar enough with how they do things afterwards, but

It wouldn't be court counsel it would be the title insurance folks defending the county or defending the title.

I think it would depend what it might be something that we'd hire special counsel for. I'm not exactly sure who would represent the county in that lawsuit.

The title insurance policy says that it's not going to cover any facts rights claims or interests that are not in public record. So it would be a battle between you folks as the county with your insurance company to say that everything I provided to you folks is public record. Whether or not they accept that and whether or not they cover you is another question. But again I'm trying to help you folks understand how messy this will be.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- None of us had an opportunity to go to the Bureau of Conveyance because it's in O'ahu and I think Prior to 1975 or 1875, it's paper documents that haven't been digitized. So, I mean, somebody could go and try to track that down. Yeah, all of these documents that I provided you, a lot of them are from burial conveyance.

So the deeds from Richard Armstrong, which is predating the liquidation that you're talking about, that's in burial conveyance. The deed from Porter Ford or his assignees of his estate to Catherine Lee is in the burial conveyance. So anything after that would be there if there was anything. I do want to backtrack because again the New Zealand resolution is clear about what is what what was transferred and what was not transferred and it was private property. So as far as the government lands part I can explain to you why it's not government lands. So William Pitt Lileohoku registered his claim for the Ahupuaq Kuiaha on February 14th 1848 with the Land Commission which is Exhibit D. The division of land with government dated May 27th 1850 Privy Council shows that the Ahupuaq Kuiaha belonged to Lileohoku and did not belong to the government. Exhibit E. Additionally, the May 27, 1850 Privy Council resolution affirmed this and states, quote, that the division of lands between the government and the widow and heir William Leleohoku deceased this day submitted to the king and Privy Council be and is hereby approved, end quote, as a little bit F. So since May 27, 1850, the government of the kingdom of Hawaii no longer had a legal interest in the ahupua'u of Kuiaha. So they gave that up and it belonged to Leleohoku. As far as the crown, I kind of explained this, but The document number 387 shows that Kamehameha III, who was the Crown from 1825 to 1854, held a legal interest in the Ahupuaq Kuiaha, and that's in Exhibit G. There's also translations for you folks, by the way. However, Royal Patent 217 to William L. Lee containing the entire Ahupua'a of West Kuyaha was awarded by Kamehameha III on February 19, 1850 and shows the signature of Kamehameha. So in awarding Royal Patent 217 to William L. Lee, Kamehameha III as the Crown relinquished the Crown's legal interest in the Ahupua'a of West Kuyaha. So since the date of February 19, 1850, the Crown no longer held a legal interest in the Ahupua'a of West Kuyaha. So West Kuyaha didn't qualify as Crown lands. And similarly, Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong containing the entire Ahupua'u of East Kuiaha was awarded by Kamehameha III on August 14, 1850, shows the entire, shows the signature of Kamehameha. That's Exhibit I. In awarding Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong, Kamehameha III as the Crown relinquished the Crown's legal interest to the entire Ahupua'u of East Kuiaha. So since August 14th, 1850, the Crown no longer had a legal interest in the Ahupua'u of East Kuiaha. So by the time the resolution happened in 1898, the Crown, it was not qualified as Crown lands. So that's the reason why the land patent doesn't qualify.

And then the last one is that... Just one clarification. So you say Apana 22 reverts back to Ke'ele Kolani and John Pit Kinau Lelehoku.

So upon the 22 is of 9971 LCA is awarded in the name of William Pitlileohoku. So — The first or the second? The first. And so because there's a second which is Liliuokalani's sibling. The first William Pitlileohoku he gets his land commission award after he dies because the land commission is able to do that because the Privy Council says you know they can settle the disputes as the titles blah blah blah blah. So his land commission award is the last document after Land Commission Award 3336 to Nolope after Royal Patent 383. So it sandwiches everything prior to it and locks in the native tenant rights. So that estate is tied again to Royal Patent 383. Upon a 5 of Land Commission Award 3336 is tied to Lima Ikaika who is Richard Armstrong Royal Patent 383.

My understanding was Ke'ele Kolani gave a lot of her land to Bishop Esty.

Probably, but not the Ahupua'a of East Kweaha and West Kweaha. And those deeds are also, I have that copy of that deed on, actually, this is the next section. This was the point about The subject property did not qualify as public lands as required by the new ones resolution and I can go there since this is where we're talking about Kelly Polanyi. So The subject property did not qualify as public lands as required by the noon's resolution as Kuiaha was the estate of William Pitt Leleohoku. The May 27th 1850 Privy Council resolution states quote and that the Minister of the Interior be and is hereby authorized to grant a royal patent or patents to Luka Keilikolani the widow of the said Leleohoku for such land as may be apportioned to her as her dower in the estate of said Leleohoku and also to grant a royal patent or patents to John Pitt Kina'u, the son and heir of the said Leohoku, for such as may be assigned to him and as of his portion of a said estate. Provided, however, that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as interfering with the rights of the Land Commission to settle all disputes that may exist as to the title or bounds of any said lands, and further provided that nothing therein shall contain shall be construed as interfering with the rights of native tenants in said land." End quote. And that's Exhibit F. Indeed by Ke'elekulani and Iowani'i dated August 10th 1850 and located in Lieber 4 page 220. Iowani'i guardian of John Pitt Kina'u minor heir of William Pitt Lileohoku conveyed East Kuyaha to Luka Ke'elekulani and West Kuyaha to William L. Lee derived from interest in Lileohoku's estate in Ahupua'a Kuyaha. That's exhibit J. Both of those deeds are on this one page of the other side of the page. Indeed from Kelly Kolani to Richard Armstrong dated August 10th 1850 and located in Libra 4 page 221 Kelly Kolani conveyed her interest in East Quail Hut to Richard Armstrong Lima I Kaika exhibit J. Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong containing the entire Ahupua'u is Kuiaha was awarded by Kamehameha III on August 14, 1850 and contains a notation quote, see original papers for deed from Ke'eli Kolani to Lima'ikaika Armstrong end quote, showing a direct chain of title to the interests of William Laleohoku's estate and that's exhibit I. On December 2nd, 1852, Nalopi, a native tenant of Kuiaha, was awarded Land Commission Award 3336 to Nalopi, including Apana 5, in addition to Apana 4, which states, quote, Apana 5, woku ai aku ku ai mai meli mai taika, end quote, Exhibit K. Hence, Apana 5 of Land Commission Award 3336 to Nalopi is coextensive with the boundaries of East Kuiaha described in Royal Patent 383 to Richard Armstrong. On January 29th 1855 Land Commission Award 9971 upon a 2 encompassing the entire ahupua'a of Kuiaha was awarded in the name of William Pitt Lileohoku and that's Exhibit L. The Land Commission settled all disputes with regards to title the entirety of Kuiaha including West Kuiaha and East Kuiaha and therefore the subject property is private property under these directly intercorrect interconnected original instruments that grant the title during the time of the Great Mahele in the 1850s under the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii. so therefore the subject property wasn't public lands either so to summarize again the property that is in is within all of these original titles predating land patent 6553 was neither government lands it was neither crown lands and it wasn't public lands it was private property so it was never conveyed to the united states by the newton's resolution which is the american law And it was and therefore it was never given to the territory of Hawaii. They didn't have a legal interest to then issue a land patent 6553. That's that's the biggest reason why it doesn't have standing. The law says so.

So some of the readings they did said that something about the right to purchase is purchase lease under Part 7 of the Land Act of 1895? Yes. It would be government lands.

Who did they purchase it from? The Territory of Hawaii, correct? Because that's what the title policy that Corp Council mentioned last week. But as I just said, the Territory of Hawaii didn't have a legal interest to begin with for the reasons of the Newlands Resolution. So when it created the land patent, they might have created and signed off on it, And I also mentioned that it says write a purchase lease. So not only is it a purchase of a lease it's a purchase of a lease that had no interest to begin with. And then on top of that under under the Land Act of 1895 that it was made pursuant to it says under Land Act of 1995 1895 shows that section 16 of part 4 and that section is titled land patents states quote land patent shall be signed by the president and countersigned by the minister of the interior and shall be stamped according to law which stamp shall be paid by the purchaser. And that's Exhibit P. If you close examination of the land patent 6553 to Florence Woods shows no signature by a president and that's Exhibit O. I provided you folks a copy that I retrieved from the borough conveyance because I go to the borough conveyance and research the history of my ahupuaʻa. And so I provided that folks to you guys not just in this testimony but I provided it in the WIPA response request I sent to the Department of Corporation Council which they responded to in April 7th of this year. So they've had a copy of that land patent to actually look at it and speak from the facts of the document. But that hasn't happened yet. And so the fact that it doesn't have a president's signature it wasn't made in compliance with the Land Act of 1895. So that's another reason why it doesn't have standing. There's a lot of reasons why there's no standing for this land patent.

CONCIE PEDROZA- Wanting to go back to the process that we were talking about the Mahele process. Step 4 on the Royal Patents on Land Commission Awards of Kuleana etc. is that the final transfer of title to the individual awardees was given once a nominal payment for the aina along with and covering the services of surveyors was made. Upon receipt of the payment, a Royal patent was issued. So there hasn't been a Royal patent to 3336 4 upon a 5.

I don't, we don't need one because it's attached to Richard Armstrong's Royal patent. his name is Lima Ikaika on our our land commission award document Lima Ikaika is the same person as Richard Armstrong and his documents show that so it's it's interesting because again it's another example where in the absence of a royal patent a land commission award connects directly to someone else's patent under their name there's all these little nuances that are in these documents if you if we look at them very very closely so Okay. And I can I can even go and explain the boundaries that are in the testimony because that that I can I have that as well. The boundaries as described for a point of five because that's documented as well under LCA 3336. So I have a copy of and I didn't submit this as part of this testimony, but I can provide it to you folks as well. I have a copy of the native testimony. You folks can read that. I'll go to the foreign testimonies in English. And so it says claimant three three three six Nalopi Kapiha.

From January 30th 1848.

January 30th 1848. This is. Native testimony. Let me try this one second. July 13th July 1848. Yes it should be 1848. He registered his claim in January of 1848. Yeah I read that one. If you can submit that other one with the boundaries. OK I can do that. So it says what this is from Kapi'he which will come in later as well. Kapi'he sworn the claimants land lands are five pieces three pieces in the Ili of Ululoa and two pieces in the Ili of Kupuamoa in the Ahupua'a of Kuiaha. The claimant received them from his wife in the days of Kamehameha I and his title was never, has never been disputed. Kapihe, the wife of Nalopi. No, no, Kapihe is the person who testifying on behalf of Nalopi and saying that Nalopi's wife gave the land to Nalopi. From Kamehameha one day. Yes. Yes, he was alive in 1819, which is important historically because this is during the time of the Kapu system fully intact. And so that gives you an idea of, you know, five parcels in Kuiaha. Who was his wife? Probably someone who was Kapu because she had a lot of lands in the Ahupua'a. And also just some other historical facts is that Kalola, who was killed, Pualani's grandmother, had lands in Pawella, which is our actually, Apana VI is also in Pawella. So the Ali'i's these very high-end Kapuali'is resided in that area. So it's just extra context, but back to the foreign testimony. And then after that, it lists the different Apana. It says number five is bounded Mauka by the Ili of Lua O'opu, Ko'olau by Pali of Kaupakalua, Makai by the seashore, and Wailuku by Kuiaha. And so the native testimony, it's not a discrepancy, I would say, but it's a little bit extra. The boundaries, they say, is 4.5. So when you put those two together, it's saying from The Pali of Kaupakalua is the western, or the eastern boundary, which is the Ko'olau side. The Makai boundary is, in one it says seashore, in the other it says Pali, because if you go to this Kai at Kuiaha, the Pali drops down, and it's just Pohaku and the Kai. So, and I have actually, I can show you guys a photo of that too. Because I, again, so this is actually me standing at which is the boundary between Kalpakalua and East Kuiaha. And you see all the way in the back, background is East Kuiaha going all the way to the river mouth, which is, there's a river mouth for East Kuiaha. This is the stream that is completely dry at that time. And here's the Pali of Kuiaha. So from, that is the Kai boundary. Okay. You got to kind of follow along because, and remember all these little details. I'm sorry if I sound rude, I'm just trying my best to educate you folks as best as I can. And so the testimony says the Mauka boundaries, so we know Kaupakalua, seashore, Kuiaha, probably going up to the Ili of Lua O'opu. But if we recall from earlier in this testimony, it says that two Apana are in the Ili of Kupoamoa and three are in Ululoloa. Kupuamoa is where Apana 4 is, so we know that's one of them. Apana 2 is also there because it says on our land commission award, Uku'ai'aku ku'aimai me kapihe. And if you look in Kapihe's land commission award for his Apana 5, you'll see the language, actually, I mean, quote it verbatim. It says, Apana 5, ilio ululoloa kuiaha, uku'ai'aku ku'aimai, okeyia menalopi ili okupuamoa. So Apana 2 and Apana 4 are both in the Ili of Apana 2 and Apana 4 of Nalopi's LCA are both in the Ili of Kupuamoa. Kupuamoa is where Land Commission or or the Apana 4 is located. Right. So that's Mauka of where the fire station site is. The Ili of Ululoa is Mauka of that. So the other three Apana of which Apana 5 is also in a Pana 5 is in the Ili of Ululoa. Okay. So Luau'opu, if that's the Mauka boundary of a Pana 5, Luau'opu is Mauka of Ululoa. So from Luau'opu going back down towards Makai is a Pana 5. So that includes the fire station site. And those boundaries are very specifically described in Royal Patent 383.

Thank you. At this time I think all the background information that we had is out there and I'd like to open it up for a committee discussion. We did put four minutes initially but I think I would like to give you folks up to five minutes per member to start the discussion. We still have a majority of the same resources. Dr. Six had to step away. But other than that the rest of the resources are available. If you had anything to clarify of the background information or if you had any further questions or discussion. Okay I see members Sugimura's hand up.

We're going with five minutes. Yeah. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Williams. for all that you have presented. If you can put it closer to your mouth. Thank you Mr. Williams for all that you have presented. What I really want to know is what the administration is saying with the information that he has presented and what is our position for the County of Maui and I would like to hear from Kaponoae as well as planning but more importantly from Corp Council as I think Chair Lee also asked earlier. Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Before you guys answer and if you can pause the clock. I did speak with fire department the mayor OEB resources but I mean they're here so they can speak for themselves on the potential of the other 20 acres outside of the fire station as, you know, native tenant ag lands. And they were supportive. So what does that mean? That is something that would have to be further discussed and fleshed out with probably OEV, with ag, and with native tenants. He is the native tenant in the room, as he stated. So that was just my baseline. And then you can continue on asking questions that you'd like, and you can resume the time. Go ahead. Okay, I see Mr. Williams popped up. You want him to say something? It's your time to do it as you like.

Yeah, so basically what, if I could then... What you are saying is that the mayor and the fire department is saying to do what with this 20 acres is to give it to Mr. Williams.

They were open to a discussion of keeping it in ag and doing ag and native tenants rights applying.

I can add. As I stated last meeting the county cannot give me something it doesn't have. I just went verbatim through my testimony that I provided and written for you folks as to why the land patent 6553 has no standing. You cannot give me something that you do not have and that I already have. So as far as native tenant rights and negotiations personally my attorneys would need to be present for any negotiation before any of that happens because I'm not going to negotiate with folks I mean I actually mean during the Kapaa Kai analysis I was open to negotiation with and that's very clear in the recommendations I gave. However the fire chief Ventura in his response to those recommendations shut them all down. So the county was the one that closed the door on potential negotiations. And so now I'm back and now we want to negotiate all of a sudden. I find that kind of strange. So your answer is no, right? My answer is one, attorneys need to be present. My attorneys need to be present. And on top of that, again, you cannot extinguish my native tenant rights. Whatever decisions you make, I still have my rights. It's not dependent on the county. It's not dependent on whether the county wants to do Puʻohonua. I have the right by law to assert Puʻohonua as I did. I have the right to walk anywhere in the East Quiaha, from Mauka to Makai, because we have the title. documents all of them. You cannot extinguish my native tenant rights. They have never been distinguished. My kupuna never sold. They still we are still alive. We are here still. You cannot extinguish them because that's where the lawsuit starts. And again as soon as one one dig that's damages.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. That's pretty clear. So I would like to request executive session.

Can we give everybody their opportunity to ask whatever they want to ask in open session before we go into executive session, if that's the will of the body? Member Sugimura, are you done with your opportunity? Okay. Chair Lee.

Mr. Williams, did you say that's where the lawsuit starts? Is there an active lawsuit?

What I meant by that is you folks making an active decision to give me a reason to to create a lawsuit to file a lawsuit because you if you dig for example you are damaging the property that does not belong to the county and does belong to our Ohana. So it gives me grounds additional claims is what I'm saying. And I'm trying to like I said earlier I'm trying my best for you folks to prevent that from the county doing that because again your title insurance policy will not cover any damages to the county that come from these earlier rights that you folks said are not on public record there is nothing on public record. That's your position that's fine. The count the insurance policy will not cover which means it's going to come out of the county funds which then potentially might come out of the project funds which you won't have a fire station at all. I'm trying to give you guys the best opportunity to continue the project elsewhere without us having to do all this mess and without burdening taxpayers.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Well first of all we would have to know where in Haiku.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Site D is the other site. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Site D. Okay.

And then my other question is have you filed any lawsuits at regarding other properties and Juan with your arguments that you've presented here today.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- I'm in a current active litigation for the parcels that are in the Gulch where I live. There's an active litigation right now which by the way I won't give you too much details because again it's active. But that started the same month that the Kapaa Kai analysis was completed by the consultants, which to me was kind of strange that the county finishes the Kapaa Kai analysis, looks at my recommendations, shuts them down, and then a lawsuit began to try and push me off on my land.

Okay, the other thing is my concern is that you're you're coupling us with the administration, we're not administrators. Correct. And so when they closed the door, that didn't mean that we closed the door.

Okay, I understand that.

So you still might be open to negotiation?

I'm not going to say yes or no to that. I very clear my attorneys need to be present if any discussions about future plans of negotiating with the county. I'm pretty clear again, You felt the county does not have standing. Why would I negotiate with the county when what has the county provided. They haven't done the county has not done the site visit to the burial sites. That's a red flag to me. They haven't done the AIS for the parcels in the Gulch. That's a red flag to me. We're having these discussions about oh well we can rezone the 6 and reserve the arrest for native tenants when the 6.1 acres is still my native tenant rights like we're circling around the issues of the fact again corporate counsel already admitted through two different documents or one document and in statements last meeting that there's no claim prior to that land patent 6553 for the county

I just wanted to clarify that the UEPA request that you're talking about that we don't have in our possession but the county hasn't gone to the Bureau of Conveyance. I believe I submitted that as exhibit.

That would be exhibit B and written testimony.

Of today.

Yes.

that the colony doesn't have in their possession.

MR. Yes that's fine. That's directly from the Department of Corporation Council. I submitted that also at the June 5th meeting. A regular county meeting.

MS. Nahulu if you answered that or whoever answered the UEPA request that we don't have those documents it's not verification that they don't exist. We haven't gone to the Bureau of Conveyance to track it from Catherine Lee to. would?

UIPA is really specific in what it requires. So I can't say exactly what research could have been done but it just means that the county doesn't maintain those records. So at the time of the request they didn't have any of the documents that were being requested.

In their possession.

Yeah.

But it doesn't mean they don't exist or they could exist. We just don't have them.

It means that whatever was being requested that department doesn't have them. Yes. FRED PODESTA.

And that's why that statement that Corp Counsel said last meeting about the title insurance policy and what it says was supposedly the original instrument that granted title. If that's the case that the land patent 6553 is the original instrument that granted title for the county's claim that means that the county doesn't have anything prior to that. That's what the title insurance policy says for you folks because otherwise the title insurance policy would have traced further back. Because if there was other lands that were clear if the county had a clear claim to other land commission or royal patents I'm sure the title insurance policies would flag that as yes the county has those claims. But for some reason whenever these title insurance companies can't trace a clear chain of title they just stop in for example 1916 because that's where that's where it begins for you folks as the county. That's it.

CONCIE PEDROZA- Chair Lee I took some of your time. Do you have more. Member Rollins-Fernandez said she had to go to the airport. She said she is available by phone. Did anybody else have questions comments discussion. Member Cook. Go ahead.

SPEAKER 9- Hi Chair. Thank you very much. My questions for you Mr. Williams. So East Cuyahoga West Cuyahoga Pineapple Fields there's a lot of people who live up there. How does this the land title ownership address all the residents up there. Are they included in this at all or is it a separate area that I'm not familiar with. FRED PODESTA.

Generally speaking similar if they have a similar issue where those folks don't have clear title to these original titles from the great Mahele they don't have their title. And there's families that still have clear title from the time of the Mahele. So that's why we always have these land disputes is because real estate agencies such as Alexander Baldwin for example historically which overthrew Queen Liliuokalani in her own kingdom sell lands that they don't own and people purchase lands that don't have clear title and then people settle lands and we keep getting population booms upset. It's settler colonialism happening in real time for us. So those folks living there right in Kuiaha If they don't have clear title they don't have clear title and they don't have the right to infringe on the rights of Native tenants of Cuyaha. I would position for those folks you know if they don't if they want to stop paying taxes to the government why don't they support the Kuleana families that actually own the property because again royal patents are allodial. There's no reason to be paying taxes on a title that is superior to the government. But those conversations can be had.

Thank you. I guess my follow-up question. Thank you very much. And, you know, your research and your presentation is very solid. And I respect you for your diligence. My curiosity is like the tension and the conflict of like people who are paying property tax and the issues coming up now are pretty huge. and then where does that leave the people and if they stop paying property tax because quote the state doesn't own the property can't do it it's like i guess i'm just trying to see a path forward thank you yeah i can respond to that because really the vision should be to eliminate the tax map key system because that's the system of all it is is paying taxes on property that someone doesn't own

because a TMK is not ownership it's not a title. You can have all of the real property tax records real property tax assessments but if that person doesn't have a clear chain of title to the property they're just paying taxes to the government on something that they don't own. And so I mean in honesty the government should be sued for defrauding people for lands the county doesn't have or county state whoever we're paying tax to for defrauding the people forcing them to pay taxes on property that was already allodial from the time of the kingdom. That's that's the real issue is another foreign government in this Hawaiian island that has an active that was never sovereignty was never extinguished. You know we hear it verbatim but we have a different government enacting its laws here in Hawaii forcing us to pay taxes on properties that this foreign government doesn't have a right to be taxing us to begin with. That's really the crux of it. FRED PODESTA.

Chair do I have another minute.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- I think you have a lot. We had five minutes.

FRED PODESTA. Okay thank you. So thank you Mr. Williams. So like layering on top of that is people who've got loans and mortgages from banks like there's a whole stack of it's not just government the government it's also the I don't know People working on it, doing it. So I'm looking forward to continue to consider. I'm tongue-tied.

Yeah, maybe it's called the real estate industrial complex. It's real estate agencies, title insurance companies, the banks, and the government all working together to dispossess us Kanaka, specifically us Kanaka, from our lands.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you sir. I don't have any further questions chair. Thank you very much.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. That just leaves on this committee today member Johnson or member Rollins Fernandez for first round.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you chair. You know having here everything I don't have questions it's just got an aura of sadness around this. You know there's a lot of history. And there's a lot of untying knots of bad decision making that this body has to do. And it's just, I wish we had a clean piece of land. We could put a community servicing facility on it. But that's not the waters in which we swim. We've got all of the history that brought us to this point so far. I don't have anything to add to this conversation. It's sad to hear what went down up until now. So I'll wait until we decide what we're gonna do. I'll wait to hear from the administration. If we go into executive session, I'm here for it. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Member Rawlings-Fernandez.

Hello, Chair. I'm in my vehicle alone for Sunshine Law purposes. I don't have additional questions. I think oftentimes, so this project, as I understand it, was inherited by the chief and that's just like pushing it forward. And I know how sometimes government invests public dollars into projects and then feel obligated to complete it then after legitimate concerns are raised. And often we're put into this false dichotomy of either having a fire station or a project or not. And I don't, that's false. On Molokai, you know, similar to Maui, the east side where there's more water has, you know, more land titles, Kuleana land, royal patent. And when we tried to build on undeveloped land, well, not we, not me, but when there was a proposal to build on undeveloped land, it was rejected by our community. And what we ended up doing was just finding a pre-disturbed lot that had a house on it already. And so like that is another option. It doesn't have to be like a station it can be a house with just like a apparatus shelter that's along the highway. And so I think, anyway, just kind of exploring that, because on Molokai, it wasn't county owned land that we found. We found private property and then we acquired it and, are making it work. And hopefully, we're able to open it construction will be called by the end of this year, and we'll have a fire station on the east side of our island where our firefighters will be safe. Anyway, you all know about that fire station in a while away, relocating from coal. And, you know, so perhaps instead of like putting all this pressure on our native tenants, dispossessing them, of ancestral aina that we look into a third option. Anyway, and I know like a site selection happened. I've been part of site selections for the fire station and for a cemetery. So I know how sometimes it's not like the best process. And you know we know better now and we should do better when we when we're given information for us to do better.

Anyway that's my thoughts right now.

I'm sorry. I'm driving.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Member. Member Rawlings-Fernandez are you going to the airport to come over here to Maui. DIRECTOR FERNANDEZ- Yes.

Yes.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. And when are you expecting to arrive over here.

My flight's at 12. I'm running behind schedule, but I hope Okulele will hold the flight for me. But anyway, to answer your question, sorry, Chair, I should arrive by about like 12.45. Okay.

And you're coming to this meeting? Okay. Did you have something you wanted to say to Member Rollins-Fernandez?

It's sort of, or just, and then also I guess going back to, I think it was Member Leslie's question about the other site, site. So there's, there's three sites in Cuyaha that were proposed and there's one site outside of Cuyaha. Again, as I've shared, that's the word, agnosium. I think that's the word. Our claim is the entirety of East Cuyaha and all three of those sites in Cuyaha are in East Cuyaha. So again I'm trying to prevent other headbutts later because I would be back to push back on those other sites as well. The site D is outside of Cuyaha and I don't have a claim over there. That site D site TMK number is 228006037 and From my understanding the state of Hawaii claims to own that property. I'm not saying that affirming or whatnot but that's who you folks would have to deal with. And from my understanding from all these documents from the state they're supportive of the project so I don't see why moving over to Site D and working with the state would be an issue where there's no pushback from the state whereas in Cuyahoga there's pushback. There is an alternative site there's an easier way for the county to accomplish the project like Member Keone-Ferrall said that it's not we get a project or we don't get a project there is a way to get a project without doing it in Cuyahoga and trying to interfere with my native tenant rights and also the rights of the other Kuleana families because not only is it my native tenant rights in that property but because of Article 5 my responsibility is to protect the native tenant rights of the rest of the native tenants as well.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. For my opportunity I'd like to call on Mr. Arisumi. DIRECTOR ARISUMI Hello.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Hi.

Sorry. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Are you able to speak on the feasibility study for Lot D?

I am not.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Oh OK. Is there someone here of our resources? Maybe Mr. Roy? Or you can direct traffic amongst the rest of the resources.

I wasn't a part of that study.

Who's speaking, please?

I'm sorry, this is Michael.

Oh, still yet. Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, I wasn't a part of that. I've only been involved in this site, so.

Okay, we're going to call on Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Arisumi. We'll call on Mr. Roy to see if he can address the feasibility study and Site D for the members.

Chair, thank you for the question. I'll try and speak into the mic here. There was a feasibility study completed during the environmental assessment process for this project. As I mentioned earlier and at the previous meeting, this has been a longstanding project over 17 years. I recall back in 2012, during the Maui Island plan process, the council decided to place this project site within the rural growth boundary of the Maui Island plan. I mentioned that because that's quite unique in this area of Haiku and the surrounding lands. There are no other equivalent sites that fall within the rural growth boundary under the Maui Island Plan. So that was one of the considerations that was looked at as part of the feasibility study. There were multiple sites, as has been mentioned today, that were evaluated in that feasibility study, all looking at potential locations for the new fire station, essentially building on an earlier site selection process that was done before fire department elected to purchase the site.

Mr. Roy, I wanted to focus in on site D. and the feasibility of Site D if we can.

I understand. Site D was looked at in extensive detail by an engineering team and architectural team for a number of evaluative considerations. Location, emergency response coverage, parcel size, configuration, access to Hana Highway, road neck work, infrastructure availability, land ownership, acquisition development constraints, and overall feasibility. The study supported the current site as being the preferred location. The major advantage of this site was it was providing suitable highway access and space for the fire station and its related improvements in terms of Site D. I think Chief Ventura as I recall at the previous meeting had spoken to the constraints of Site D. I also recall that there was some testimony at the previous meeting expressing concern about potential burials at that site too.

So — MS. Do you recall Chief Ventura's concerns? I think part of it was we didn't own the land the water tank Do you recall all of his comments?

Yeah, I believe he had mentioned the water tank consideration. There were significant infrastructural requirements to develop that site from what I can recall of the feasibility study. It is owned by the state of Hawaii, so not the county of Maui. That was also a consideration. Developing state-owned lands is not the same process as developing county lands. But the conclusion of the feasibility study was that the Site D didn't seem to offer sufficient advantages to replace it for the preferred site that's currently proposed today. And as such, the fire department decided to proceed with the site that's currently being requested for the land use designations at today's meeting.

And you mentioned about the urban growth boundary because?

Land use entitlements were a key consideration of the feasibility study. So what we did was we had to evaluate each site according to... what kind of land use entitlement changes would be required to develop a fire station. So...

This body has previously amended the Maui Island growth plan, and it seems as though it only requires a public hearing in the district. Was that what you're saying is too difficult for the reason you brought up the urban growth boundary?

That was one... I was just mentioning it from the standpoint of background. So we're here today to request... district boundary amendment community plan amendment change in zoning so those are three designations that are being initiated by the planning director for the for the project at today's meeting um another site would involve um a needed change to the maui island plan which is a separate application separate process that would need to move forward as well so another site would need um

If we're looking at Site D we would go back to the Planning Commission do a Maui Island Plan amendment. District boundary amendment community plan amendment and zoning change in zoning as well as a new AIS.

If site D was selected as a preferred location by the fire department from an operational standpoint, which it has not been at this point in time, it would essentially involve starting the entire process from scratch. Predesign would need to occur to develop a site plan for a new fire station at an alternative location. uh an environmental assessment would need to be completed for that new project on a new parcel following completion of the environmental assessment process chair is correct there would need to be a new set of applications submitted through um the planning director which would be a maui island plan amendment district boundary amendment community plan amendment and change in zoning request they would go through the planning department review they would go to the maui planning commission for review and they would come to this body for review and recommendation similar to today's meeting Yeah, it would essentially start the process from square one.

Thank you. So given that we expect member Rollins-Fernandez approximately 1245-ish and that she's coming to Maui to join this meeting, I wanted to survey members and resources, maybe not all the resources, just the resources that we would need if somebody wants to go into executive session. about taking a lunch now and then coming back into this committee for the purpose of going into executive session to consult with the lawyer? Is that what you wanted to do, Member Sugimura? Okay.

Let me try that again. I do want to hear from court counsel.

Closer to your mouth.

I do want to hear from court counsel, but I also want to hear from planning and OEV. Okay.

I don't know that we can go into executive session to hear from planning and OEV. So why don't you ask planning and OEV your questions in open session? And then when we return from lunch, we can go into executive session to consult with a lawyer unless staff knows another reason why we would go into executive session. It's just to consult with the lawyer in this case. There's no active negotiation, so that wouldn't be a reason. So at this time, any questions that you have for planning oev or any of the resources that could be had in executive session unless you wanted to yield to member johnson but from my understanding the only reason we would be able to go into executive session is to consult with the lawyer which is mr nunakawa right now

Actually, when I first started my questions, I did want to hear from them, but I defer to Mr. Nunokawa based upon what I heard from Mr. Williams. Okay.

You want to go right now for...

I would love to hear what Mr. Evey as well as planning has to say or any of the other departments. But since you're sitting here and have heard Mr. Williams, I just wanted to hear what you have to say as well as, I mean, both your departments. And if there's anybody else who would like to chime in, that's fine.

We have water, but I don't know that.

Yeah. That would be appropriate. I heard, I was listening as I was driving down from Kula, and you're trying to figure out how to spell Jake Mabari, no, Mabari. Miyabuchi. Miyabuchi's name, so that part.

So not to spell, but okay. So if you'd like to ask, So in open session, member Sugimura is asking OEV and planning their response to what Mr. Williams asserted. And you can start her time now. Sorry, Mr. Stackhouse, go ahead.

Thank you chair and thank you member Sugimura. So from the Department of Planning I just wanted to point out from HRS section 46 dash 4 it specifically notes that zoning is a legislative action. So that is the function of this council to bring forth the final recommendation on changes of zoning. So that's within your folks's purview. And so within the charter it further provides that to The planning director shall prepare, administer, and enforce zoning ordinances, zoning maps and regulations, and any amendments or modifications thereto. So from our perspective, we can prepare those zoning ordinances, which we've done today. And then we understand that zoning ordinances are a legislative action. And so council, regardless of ownership of a property, is the authority over zoning. So regardless of who owns this property, you may zone. And if this was a different property, you guys are the authority. the zoning authority from that perspective. So we have analyzed this property and have made land use recommendations only in that regard regardless of ownership. So that is our commentary as it relates to your authority to zone properties regardless of ownership.

So the planning department basically you're standing by whatever was presented and doesn't matter what Mr. Williams has said. Maybe doesn't matter is the wrong word but It's like additional information.

It is additional information that we will not opine on because we are not land, we're not land ownership experts in that regard. Thank you.

And Kapono, aye.

I'm member Sugimura. You know, when you asked the question, I was trying to figure out how would I answer this question either from the department point of view as a director or as a kanaka listening to another kanaka in his response and making sure that the information heard was clear, was concise. Kanawai, would you like me to pause?

Um, we're gonna have to call recess if you leave. You gotta be on camera. You want water? There's a water cooler here.

Oh, sure.

Um, we'll have to call recess if we run short of. Okay. Okay. Sorry, Miss Director Molitao.

It's trying to read me. Through my train of thought here. I'm so sorry. That's okay. So just from a chemical listening to another chemical in terms of Their cooling their, their tenant rates as well as their rates to the island space. Never will I go ahead and and uh, object to any of that, or never will I go ahead and stand in opposition to, to the Native tenant right of the ʻāina. Um, that is my perspective as a kanaka for the space. Um, The kuleana of the Department of O'Oiwi is to be able to uplift those natural and cultural resources as well. That is that is the stance of this department. And again we're here to be able to listen to be able to help navigate and to be able to lift those particular areas of expertise. Nothing more to opine on that.

If I may respond about what you said but And then I'll just wait for.

Do you want to hear from Mr. Williams as well.

I wanted to hear from the administration based upon your opening and and then court counsel was where I ended up last. So I just want to hear what they have to say based upon Dave's listen to Mr. Williams.

OK so you're done with your opportunity. OK I'm going to go to Member Johnson for your your opportunity.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you Chair. I'm just going to ask to be excused for the afternoon meeting at 1 30. I have a meeting with MEMA to oversee some legislation we're working on so I won't be here. I hope it doesn't jam up quorum. It seems like everybody will be here to get the quorum but I can't I can't make that 1 30. Just FYI. Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Will we have five members to go into quorum and one member

I can work from 2 to 3.30. I have a 3.30 meeting but I could be here like 1.45 to 3.

1.45 to 3. Member Lee.

I could squeak 3.15 Chair.

I have a meeting at 12 o'clock but after that from 1.30 on I'm free the whole afternoon.

Okay. Member Sugimura. Available. Okay, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Go ahead.

Hello, Chair. And for Sunshine Law purposes, I'm at a public place. It can be an executive session. When I arrive, I can go straight there and be in executive session. I do have a meeting at 2 that I have to be in. I don't need to go into executive session. So if there's just like one or two folks that need to talk to the attorneys, they can do it, you know, without having a forum and going into executive session. It sounds like just members need to talk to the attorney. So if she wants to talk to the attorney, she can do it during the recess. As a policymaker myself, I didn't get onto the council to dispossess Kanaka of Aina, and that's my policy. And so, you know, similar to what our director of OED resources said, I will not support anything that dispossessed kanaka of ancestral aina. What I said earlier was, you know, another option, not on the site selection, because I know Site D, like, had some problems, but like we did on Molokai, we can just buy one house. We just have to do an EIS. You know, what the... RCDE says that we can do it. We're going to amend the code so that we can do it. And so let's just do it that way. It's faster. It's already built. And then they'll have a fire station immediately. We just got to build like an apparatus shelter. Mahalo Chair.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. Member Cook did you have your hand up.

DIRECTOR COOK Yes. Thank you Chair. I would like to go on Corp Council and Executive Session. when we return. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay.

It looks like we have from 1 45 to 2 p.m. where we have five members. So because Member Cook said he's available from 1 45 and Member Rawlings said she's available till 2 p.m. And Member Johnson said he's not available this afternoon. And we know that Member Sinensi, Member Uhuhajins, and Member Batangan are excused. So there's nine of us. And by doing math, that's what I come to.

MS. Johnson's changing his mind.

MS. Member Johnson.

MR. Can you recess from or come back or I'm sorry, one o'clock to, and that would allow everybody who's there. I'll have to leave, but if I leave middle, then it jams up, right? If I leave in the middle of, well, either way, I didn't want to.

If you're virtual, you can just drop off.

Okay, one to two is, I think you could ask for quorum.

Do you have five members for one to two? Member Cook.

Chair, I can make one to two.

Okay. Can everybody do 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.? Yes. Okay. So can we come back in executive session or we would have to come back in regular session and then go into executive session?

Chair, my understanding is if the body votes on executive session and recesses, you could recess to 1 o'clock and reconvene the exec session at that and convene an exec session at that time.

Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion to go into executive session at 1 o'clock for the purposes of consulting with a lawyer moved by Member Lee second by Member Cook. If I could have staff say the lawyer reason for going into executive session.

Yes Chair this would be under Section 92584 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes to consult with legal counsel on the rights duties and liabilities of the council and its committee.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. And so the plan is to recess now about 1150-ish 12-ish 1150 when I bang the wood. And then reconvene at 1 o'clock in person in this room If you're virtual stay on this link and staff will move you to the virtual executive session. And then when we adjourn executive session we can come back into the recessed meeting. Is that all.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Chair would need to announce who would be present for the executive meeting. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Both in terms of the council members as well as the resource people.

Thank you. So in terms of the council members in executive session would be myself, Tamara Palten, committee member Yukilei Sugimura, committee member Tom Cook, committee member Alice Lee, committee member Gabe Johnson, committee member Kiani Rollins-Fernandez as well as legislative attorney Karla Nakata, committee secretary Jennifer Yamashita and Deputy Corporation Counsel Nahulu Nunokawa.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Chair there might be two more attorneys from our office that would be helpful in the conversation. I'm checking with them right now if they could be online or in person for that.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. And then Member Johnson you had your hand up. SPEAKER 11- Excuse me Chair. Could we get the names of the Deputy Corp. Counsel who will be joining.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Okay.

While we wait for that, Chair, just to let her re-clear, I want to clear that I want to leave halfway through at 1.30. I got to go to another meeting. So just on the record. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And you're going to be virtually in executive session?

Yes. So just like you said, move me over. I'll be there.

When you have to leave, drop the meeting. Okay. So we won't need to recess executive session to let you out.

Okay, great.

It seems like both of them can be on for portions of it. It would be Attorney Deputy Catherine Hall and Deputy Nancy Zhao.

Deputy Catherine Corp Counsel Catherine Hall and Deputy Corp Counsel Nancy Dow will be in executive session. Anything more else I got to say. OK. So we will be recessing this. Oh sorry. All those in favor with that plan of executive session raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. Chair you have six ayes no no's three excused Committee Chair Uhu Hodgins, Vice Chair Patonga, and Councilmember Sinensi.

Okay. So now I'd like to go into recess. We'll reconvene at 1 o'clock in executive session. The time for recess is 1153. 1153. We'll come back at 1 o'clock either in the same Teams link and you'll get moved over or in person in the Kalanapakui planning conference room.

Thank you, Chair.

Will the recess meeting of July 29 that was recessed to August 10 come to order? The time is 2.26. We adjourned that executive session. We're going to recess this open meeting to August 24th. Same physical location, same Microsoft Teams link, 9 o'clock a.m. And at that time, because the lawyer had to leave executive session, we probably will go back into executive session to consult with the lawyer and for anyone who missed executive session to hear what is said. So this meeting is in recess till August 24th, 9 a.m. Same Microsoft Teams link, same physical location. Dang it.

Yes. Just to clarify, I guess the same physical location is the KP conference room here. Okay. All right.

And this meeting is in recess at 2.27. Thank you, Gabe.