BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY
COUNTY OF MAUI
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING

 
Taken at the David Trask Building, Room 205, Wailuku,
Maui, Hawaii, commencing at 9:00 a.m. on February 6, 2001.
 
Reported By:  Rachelle Primeaux, CSR #370
 
ATTENDANCE:
         Mike Nobriga, Chair
         Clark Hashimoto
         Orlando Tagorda
         Jonathan Starr
 
    Staff Present:
         Herb Kogasaka, Engineering
         David Craddick, Director
         Howard Fukushima, Corporation Counsel
         Fran Nago, Secretary
         Herb Chang
         Mike Quinn
         Arnold Abe
 
    Others Present:
         Kathy Platt
         Mary Blaine Johnston
         Ron and Dawna Richmond
         Jack Naiditch
         Peter Yacooshin
         Peter Stolle
 
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 
 
                        *  *  *
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Good morning.  I would like
to call the Oversight Committee Meeting of the Board
of Water Supply to order at this time.  We're meeting
in HGEA Conference Room 205 at the David Trask
Building.  In attendance are Committee Members Clark
Hashimoto, Orlando Tagorda, myself, Mike Nobriga.
 Also in attendance we have Board Member Jonathan
Starr as an observer.  We have the Department
Representative, David Craddick, Mike Quinn, Fiscal
Officer, a bunch of engineers, Corporation Counsel
Howard Fukushima and members of the public.  I would
like whoever is known to please be read into the
minutes at this time.
 
MS. NAGO:  We have Kathy Platt, Dawna and Ron
Richmond, Mary Blaine Johnston, Peter Yacooshin, Peter
Stolle, Jack Naiditch.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Anybody else in this room,
please state your name.  Okay then, thank you.  Also
in attendance is Fran Nago, our Board Secretary.  We
do have minutes of October 11.  Committee Members, I
request your acceptance of these minutes.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, I would like to move
that we accept the minutes of October 11, 2000, and be
filed subject to a 30-day review.  Thank you.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Second?
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Moved and seconded.  Any further
discussion?
 
(No response.)
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  All those in favor, signify by
saying "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Opposed, "nay."
 
(No response.)
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Motion is carried.  I think we
have a lot of people here from the public that will be
testifying on their particular communication.  Is
there any member of the public that wishes to provide
testimony at this time that is not part of our current
agenda?
 Okay, dokay, moving right along.  Item Number 5,
Committee Discussion Recommendation.  The first item
that we have before us is Communication 00-52, request
for a waiver of fire protection for building permit at
Tax Map Key 2-2-14:015 on behalf of William S.
Worcester.  In attendance today is Kathy Platt.  Hi
Kathy.
 
MS. PLATT:  Hi Mike.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Representing the applicant.
 
MS. PLATT:  My neighbors are Bill and Sally
Worcester and they're in New Zealand, and they asked
me if I would come and represent them today.
 They want to put a fourth building on their
property.  It's an unusual property in Waiakoa in that
half of it's zoned commercial and half of it is zoned
residential.  On the commercial part of their property
where they want to add this new building, it will be
entirely constructed of metal, concrete and steel and
glass windows.
 The problem according to the Board or the County
Water Department is the fire protection.  They've
received several letters and gone back and forth with
water flow calculations.  There's a standpipe right on
the corner of their property, and one of the big
concerns is it's located right next door to the Kula
gymnasium, which caught on fire a couple of years
ago.  And Sally and I were out there with our water
hose trying to put the fire out, too, but the fire
went out.
 Now, this property is, you could throw a rock at
the fire station from this property, and I'm not
kidding.  There's another fire hydrant right up the
road on Puakea Street, which is within 500 feet.  Now,
the Water Department has requested the Worcesters to
put in another fire hydrant on their property and to
upgrade the service from Puakea Street to their
property and make a 12-inch water line, and we have
some -- we have a letter from Mr. Craddick stating
that.
 Mr. Worcester has obtained a copy of this map,
which shows some engineering that the Water Department
is proposing to provide this very same 12-inch water
line themselves next year.  And Mr. and Mrs. Worcester
would like to have this requirement waived for them
due to the fact that the County has already obtained
the engineering to provide the said water line ahead
of time.
 They've offered to sign a waiver with the Fire
Department, and since this new building is going to be
completely fireproof, they would like to have this
requirement waived.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.
 
MS. PLATT:  Thank you.  Any questions from
anyone?  This is a workshop structure.  It's not going
to even have any electrical in it, no more standpipes,
no plumbing going to it whatsoever.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Is it going to contain any
flammables?
 
MS. PLATT:  No.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Ms. Kathy, this structure that
this family Worcester is planning to build, it looks
like it's a workshop with a, what you call it now,
size of 26 by 50-something square feet -- 36 wide and
50-something, which is too big for a workshop, so what
was really the intent if only two of them is going to
use utilize this structure?
 
MS. PLATT:  Well, they're artists, and they have
a lot of stuff.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  So what would be the things that
would be stored in that workshop, in that structure,
do you know offhand?
 
MS. PLATT:  I'm not exactly sure what they're
planning on storing in there.  They're in New Zealand,
and I can have them answer that question for you when
they come back.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Okay.  And it seems to me -- tell
me something about, there's a zoned district in that
where the building or the structure is going to be
constructed, and it's zoned residential down below or
some place?
 
MS. PLATT:  Right, the property is kind of
weird.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  How many structures are there in
that business district zone?
 
MS. PLATT:  There's an existing garage, which is
pretty small, and there's an existing very small
residence, a probably 800-square-foot residence would
be my guess.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  So this hydrant you mentioned is
it the corner of Puakea and Lower Kula Road.  How many
feet is it approximate away from --
 
MS. PLATT:  Less than 500, and there's also a
standpipe.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And there's also a standpipe --
 
MS. PLATT:  On the corner of their property.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  -- that is fed by 2 and a
quarter-inch water line, which is not adequate enough
to give you a required fire flow.
 My question is for the Department.  Mr.
Craddick, is either of the two requirements that you
are trying to impose with the Worcesters is the
12-inch and the 6-inch, so what is the consideration
given on these two options on costs and time line when
the project is going to be made?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Actually, we gave them the option
of putting in one fire hydrant and we would do the
rest because, as they said, the project is coming in.
 They refused that.  So I'm not going to dicker around
with them.  I just told them what the requirements
are, and they came to the Board.  But I already gave
them the option of doing one hydrant when we put the
water line in.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  How much would that cost, that water?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I don't know, probably $10,000,
or what would it cost for one fire hydrant?  I mean if
they tied it in when the construction was going on and
made a deal with the contractor to put it in, I'm sure
it would be less than that.
 
MS. PLATT:  That would be the top you're thinking?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.
 
MS. PLATT:  Has that line been determined
exactly when that -- is the money available to put
that line in?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's in the current budget, and I
think there's just a few last details in the design
going on.
 
MS. PLATT:  So what's the estimated date of
completion on that?
 
MR. KOGASAKA:  It's in design right now.
 
MS. PLATT:  So I guess what the Worcesters would
like to know is -- I had understood something about
this fire hydrant thing, and evidently my
understanding, which could be wrong, is that offer had
been withdrawn.  And I don't think there's anything
ever in writing proposed to the Worcesters as regards
to this proposed fire hydrant, so that's a little
sketchy with them.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, and we wouldn't put it in
writing unless they're willing to accept it.  Unless
they're willing to accept it, we wouldn't put it in
writing because it's bypassing the rules.  And if they
don't want to do it, this is the next course of
action.
 
MS. PLATT:  Well, if they were willing to say
consider that offer --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Right now, I wouldn't even bring
that up because that is -- if you want to withdraw
this from the Board and go back to that, we can do
it.  I'll leave that up to corp counsel whether we can
even do that, but it's not a place to negotiate that
here in front of the Board, because it's not in strict
compliance with the rules.
 We're just, you know, cognizant of the fact that
we're doing a water line project out there and it
needs a hydrant there.  And we figured that was
certainly fair for the project.  And, you know, if
they didn't want to do that, that's their option, but
to sit here and negotiate that, I don't --
 
MS. PLATT:  So my understanding then of what
you're saying, I could be wrong, is that they're
planning on putting a hydrant there, the County at
this point is already planning a hydrant there?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, I don't think so.  There's a
12-inch line they're putting in there.
 
MS. PLATT:  So that will increase the water flow
to the standpipe that's existing?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The standpipe won't be there
either.
 
MS. PLATT:  They're going to be moving the
existing standpipe?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah, there won't be any
standpipe there.  As Board Member Tagorda said, it's
only a 2 and quarter-inch line.  The water evaporates
before it hits the fire coming out of the standpipe.
 
MS. PLATT:  So then the existing fire hydrant at
Puakea will be servicing that whole area including the
existing gymnasium?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That I don't know exactly what
all the particulars are in the design.
 
MS. PLATT:  Because I live across the street
from there and I'm kind of worried about fire, too,
now that you're telling me the hydrant is coming out.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Is there any other
questions for Ms. Platt?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  You understand our Department
rules and regulations that on a business district
zone, there is that minimum requirement flow required,
and this is 2,000 gpm for two hours.  Although you
mentioned the proximity of that Fire Department to
this parcel, subject parcel, I'm sorry, that I cannot
personally give credit to that because it really
didn't mention in our rules and regulations about when
there is this parcel is close to the Fire Department,
you should be given some consideration as to your
safe.
 However, the reason I guess is I believe I'm in
the position to deny your request to waive fire
protection is because being a business district zone,
you have a lot of things that need to be protected,
not only the structure that the Worcesters are going
to build, but the surrounding neighborhood.
 And I'm going to doubt the reason behind
building a big workshop, what will be stored inside.
Because you just mentioned that it's going to be
utilized by the couple who are designers and things
like that.  And with that big workshop, 26 by 52,
correct me if I'm wrong, it's bigger than my house,
bigger than my garage.
 
MS. PLATT:  It's pretty big.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Yeah, it's pretty big.
 
MS. PLATT:  So what you would like to hear from
them is what they're planning on storing inside?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Yes.
 
MS. PLATT:  Okay.  Any other questions I can
answer for you?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  If there's no other questions, I
recommend we defer this until the applicants return
from New Zealand, and we can talk to them again about
working with the Department to have a fire hydrant put
in during -- because we were going to do the work.  It
shouldn't be very expensive, as expensive as trying to
do the work themselves.  And if they would be open to
that, this can be solved without action by the Board.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  So moved, Mr. Chair.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.
 
MS. PLATT:  May I ask that they put on the
agenda at the next Board meeting, the full Board is
the 20-something?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Our committee report will be
forwarded to the Chairman, and the Chairman will
include it in the agenda.
 
MS. PLATT:  On February 22nd?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yeah.  Motion is to defer action
on this.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chair, I guess we cannot
really commit whether we can put that on the agenda
this coming regular meeting.  Would you commit that,
that we can put it on the agenda?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  The motion is to defer.  That
means it is deferred, and it will be taken up at a
different committee meeting date.
 
MS. PLATT:  Could I ask when you think that may
be so I could let them know.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  First week of March.
 
MS. PLATT:  First week of March?

CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes.
 
MS. PLATT:  Are you going to be contacting them,
or how should I ask them to proceed?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  We will be contacting them.
 
MS. PLATT:  Thank you for your time.  I
appreciate that.  What I will be asking them to do is
let you folks know what they're planning on storing
inside, yeah?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.
 
MS. PLATT:  Okay, thank you very much.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  All those in favor, signify by
saying "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Opposed, "nay."
 
(No response.)
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Motion carries.  Next item is
Communication  01-01, request of waiver of subdivision
requirements, I believe I might be corrected, but Tax
Map Key 2-2-02:004 Ulupalakua on behalf of -- Mary
Blaine Johnston on behalf of Peter Yacooshin.  And we
have with us --
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  I'm Mary Blaine Johnston.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Hidy-ho.
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  And I represent Peter Yacooshin.
Thank you.  I haven't had the opportunity to appear
before in committees or the Board until we were at the
Board meeting a couple of weeks ago.  I think most of
you gentlemen were there.  I made a brief statement
about this request for waiver, and I guess this is the
opportunity for me to go into a little more detail.
 Usually attorneys talk too much, so I'll try to
keep my comments as brief as possible.  I received a
copy of the report that was done by the Department,
and I would like to address myself to a couple of
them, especially of the recommendation and discussion
phase in just a minute.  But first I want to give you
a little bit of background on the project.  I had
asked Peter over the weekend to take some pictures of
the property, and I'm just going to circulate those
and he can just give you an idea of what we're talking
about and what he's requesting and then he can answer
any questions about that.
 He has come and asked the Board to waive the
requirement that the Department said he would have to
meet in order to get a building permit, which would be
for fire protection, and install a newer, larger water
meter and then was told that there was no way to get a
newer, larger water meter, so that's kind of an
impossibility.  The fire protection would be
prohibitively expensive for him, so that's not really
a possibility either.  Just as background, this is
about 25 acres of property at Ulupalakua.  It's right
below Sun Yat Sin Park.  Most of you are probably
familiar with it.  It's owned by five hui members.
It's owned by a general partnership, Noel Johnson
Hui.  Mr. Yacooshin's interest equals about 2 and a
half acres of the land that's designated for his use.
 At some point, it's my understanding hui members do
want to do a subdivision when it's possible to meet
the requirements, not the least of which are the water
requirements.
 There are two -- several structures on the
property.  In addition to the shed that Peter is
living in now, there are two other homes that are
occupied, one by John Pollock, who was the first one
to have a permitted structure and to come to the Board
and receive a waiver of the very same requirements
we're asking for a waiver of today.  And the second is
Neil Coshever, he did the same, went through the same
process.
 Mr. Pollock, the Department of Water Supply had
the same recommendation they have on our application
here, and that was to deny request for a waiver.
Apparently, the Board overruled that, and on May '97,
an agreement modifying the subdivision requirements so
that he did not have to comply was recorded.  Mr.
Coshever's similar modification agreement was recorded
in January of '98.  I would like to point out at the
time that both of those agreements were recorded that
Peter's shed was already there.  It was built in '94.
That all the calculations that were done, and I
couldn't find those in the file when I went and looked
at the Department's file, thus included at the time
the very same use that's being made now by Peter of
the water.
 If you see -- I asked him to particularly take a
picture of the toilet.  That was one of the first
things he put on the property.  It's outside.  It's
been there since '94.  His plans to get a permit
involve moving that toilet inside where most people's
toilets are and installing a sink in the kitchen and
installing a shower.  It's a very minor modification.
Without those, his living in the building shed there
is illegal, and he wants to comply with all the rules
so he can legitimately live there.
 Again, let me point out that even when Easy
Street is taken care of, and there's mention made in
the report that the agreement that was entered into in
'99 with them will take some of the stress off this
meter.  Those 7 lots will be taken off this particular
meter.
 But I noted for the first time in the report,
and I want to stand corrected, in the letter that I
wrote to the Board, that apparently even when that
occurs, that the flow rate is still going to be
insufficient to meet the Department's requirements so
that we would end up having to come back here anyway.
 According to the recommendations, the fire
protection will be taken care of, but that can be
taken care of in the same way it was taken care of
when Mr. Pollock and Mr. Coshever came before the
Board and asked for a waiver.  So basically, what
we're asking is the same kind of treatment of this
that was given to both Mr. Pollock and Mr. Coshever
who, although they are -- I guess Mr. Pollock's
building was actually up before Peter's shed was
built, before Mr. Coshever's.  I would like to focus
just a few comments on the page on the report that was
done, which lays out pretty well the chronology on
this piece of property.  There are a lot of things
that just as background that aren't here that have
gone on with the Land Use and Codes just to give you
an idea of what Peter has gone through so far because
there's a comment made here that he's not willing to
comply with the rules.
 He applied for his permit in 1998, that's
September, and I won't go through all the difficulties
that he ran into, but they were numerous, not the
least of which was the notice that was sent out in May
of '99 to him saying he only had until the end of
December to finish up his building permit
application.
 That notice, although his name was on it, went
to Mr. Pollock, his Post Office Box.  And Mr. Pollock
has been a constant critic of Peter, so he never saw
it.  I sort of serendipitously was talking to Mr.
Enomoto and he mentioned something, "Have you seen the
letter your extension is running out?"  And I had
not.  So that was November of '99, so we've had --
since then, I requested an extension.  We worked out
an extension of the deadline because Peter is working
under the '98 permit, and if he loses this permit
application, he'll be kicked into the new ag bill and
probably will not be able to meet those subdivision
requirements.
 So in between my correspondence with the Water
Department, there's been correspondence, meetings with
the County people.  Kealakapu Road, they weren't even
sure whether that was a County road.  It's taken them
about a year to work that out.  They're going to take
it now as a County road, which affects the
requirements for dedication of road width and so
forth.
 It's been a very time-consuming process and very
tedious.  You can see my file here, and this isn't
even all of it.  I couldn't put it all in the folder.
On the recommendations that were made just briefly, I
would like to go through and address those.  Under 6A,
the mention that a shed is entitled to the same kind
of fire protection, realistically, for those of you
that have actually been down to this property, if
there's a fire, by the time the fire truck got there,
there probably would not be much left.
 In recognition of that, Peter has no problem
with signing a modification agreement holding the
Water Department free of any liabilities.  In January
of last year, he executed a similar agreement with the
County on their fire control requirements.  In the
year that's elapsed since then, the County is no
longer requiring that, so that's -- you know, we went
through that whole drill.  And in the process, we
found out that the partnership that owned the land,
the registration had lapsed.  We had to reregister the
partnership, pay penalties, have title reports done,
and now we don't need that, so I guess that's a good
thing.
 The Paragraph B addresses itself to the problems
of the -- there is a 3-quarter-inch meter.  The hui is
paying -- not paying ag rates, that's pointed out in
here.  They are paying residential rates and have been
for a while.  And even with Easy Street improvements,
whenever they're able to finish them, the improvements
are going to be over $200,000.  Apparently, there's
still going to be a problem with the flow rate, but
again, Peter has been using the same water since 1994,
so any of the previous calculations that are done or
any strains on the system, he's already on it.  It's
functioning, no problem.  So he's even at the bottom
of the -- at the end of the line, so if anybody is
going to have problems, he would be having problems
and he hasn't been.
 Paragraph C talks about the Easy Street, what
they're going to be doing will help with the fire
protection, but, as I say, if the Board grants our
waiver, that won't be necessary.  And D I found very
troubling, because, one, I don't know where this
information came from, and I'm kind of troubled by the
observation, it says, "It is our Department's
understanding that the applicant is not participating
with his neighbors to bring the water system up to
standard and should not be allowed to bypass the rules
while others are working to comply with the rules."
Well, A, that's simply not correct.  There's never
been any indication that the hui members were not
going to comply.
 The last most recent mailing was a letter that
Peter received about a three days ago requesting each
hui member to sign a retainer agreement with an
attorney that the Easy Street people have retained.
There are questions there, but I think, as far as I'm
aware, the hui has agreed to pony up some money to
help with this, and Peter certainly is in there, too.
 I think the comment that he hasn't worked to
comply with the rules, simply by what I've described
as the process we've gone through is just not
correct.  Since I've taken over to try to help him, he
got very frustrated in trying to deal with this whole
issue.  And this is the first time I've worked through
one of these permits also, so I've learned a lot in
this.  We've tried to comply with all the requirements
that have been laid out.  We've gotten approval from
the State Historic Preservation that there are no
problems there.  The tax clearance expired at the end
of this year.  We got an extension from Mr. Goode.  We
have the new tax clearance.
 The fire protection with the County has been
taken care of.  Before the end of '99, Peter paid
$2,040, the park assessment fee, which the County has
had in its possession since that point in time.  He's
done everything he can to comply.  He's paying very
much attention to the rules.  Most people I think
would just simply live there until something happened,
but he really is intent on trying to get this legally
permitted.
 The recommendation is, as it was for the request
for waiver by both Mr. Pollock and Mr. Coshever, that
it be denied because of the inadequacies in the
system, and there was a way -- the Board found a way
to work around those problems.
 Let me go back up to B.  The comment, "By
allowing a waiver of this requirement, the Board may
receive more waiver requests for developments that
exceed their existing meter capacities," I find that
kind of a non sequitur because there are going to be
people coming and asking for waivers.
 When we came to the Board meeting, full Board
meeting two weeks ago, Peter told me he parked down
below in the building in the parking structure.  And
the security guard came up to him and said, "Where are
you going?"
 He said, "Well, I'm going to the Water Board."
 He says, "Oh, you must live upcountry."
 So it's kind of funny, but it's a reality.
Until the system gets improved, which we hope will be
one of these days, people are going to come in with
needs.  And this is a need and this is why the
Department has to apply the rules and their
recommendations in their letter to me about the
requirements, that's what they have to do.
 The Board can step back and say, well, here's a
situation -- I think if you've looked at the pictures,
Peter has a nursery.  The picture shows some of the
vegetation there.  It's a small nursery.  The tractor
is one he recently bought so he can do some work.
These are chickens in the chicken coop.  This was a
bread truck that the County cited him for having and
an unpermitted shed and fined him $500, which he
paid.
 And you have a picture of the existing structure
of the shed, and next to it you have a little barn.
These are photos 3 and 4.  And I have a copy of the
plans that have been done, and I can just explain
briefly what the project is.  The existing structure
is basically 28 feet by 16 feet.  It's just two
rooms.  The concept is just to add on another space of
17 feet by 13 and a half feet.  This would be a
kitchen area with a sink, and this would be the
bathroom area with the toilet and a shower in it.  And
very simple, it's under $6,000 worth of improvements
just so he can stay there legally and take care of his
nursery, which is the source of his income.  He does
nursery and landscape consulting.  I just would
request the committee, this is a circumstance where
somebody is trying to go by all the rules and do the
right thing.  We have a time limit now where we have
an extension until March 31st to finish the
application process.  We have come to some kind of
agreements with the -- on the roadway and dedication
of a segment of the roadway that Land Use and Codes is
going to help us accommodate here so that there's not
a major expense.
 So we just ask this committee to recommend to
the Board that they grant a request for waiver.  I
will be happy to answer any questions.  And, Peter, if
you have any questions for Peter, he's here.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Chairman.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  On D, it says, "It is our
Department's understanding that the applicant is not
participating with neighbors."  But according to --
what's the --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Well, does everybody remember Ted
Isaacson when he came into the Board for this exact
same thing, and the Board said he had to fix the
pipeline going up to Kamaole tank?  He's currently in
the process of doing that.  Everybody in the
subdivision, including Neil Coshever and John Pollock,
have agreed to participate in that.  The only one who
hasn't agreed to participate in that is Mr.
Yacooshin.  And this is according to Ted Isaacson as
of what, three weeks ago?  So if that's changed, we
don't know.  What we do know, Dorvin Leis had to put
in Mr. Coshever's share into the agreement to make it
go because the other people couldn't afford to kick in
his share.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Yacooshin.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  So if that's wrong, we would like
to hear from the other people in the group that that
is wrong.  And you know, again, the last two times the
Board did this, the Board took trips down there.  And
I would recommend the same to this Board, if you want
to go see what the heck is going on down there,
they've got multi-million-dollar properties down
there.  This one particularly may not be, but it's one
of the eight, and one of the eight has been -- I don't
even know how they subdivided.  I guess it's just kind
of catch-as-catch-can kind of a deal where they do
further subdividing without really subdividing just
saying, "Oh, let us live here and we'll divide this
section off."
 And Pollock has a few houses.  Neil Coshever has
one or two dwellings.  Now we've got more from this
side, but it's all one lot.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Orlando.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Can I ask Mr. Yacooshin, where do
you reside right now, Mr. Yacooshin?
 
MR. YACOOSHIN:  I spend a great deal of time up
in the shed up in Ulupalakua, and I have a place in
Kihei where I stay.  I've spent over 20 years in Kihei
when I grew up, and I prefer upcountry.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Reading all this information in
front of me, I'm kind of inclined to believe that
there is something really going on in that property
that I believe that the hui is avoiding a
subdivision.  They have imaginary lines drawn to get
their own interest in that property just to avoid
subdivision requirements imposed by the Department of
Water Supply, and that's how I see this thing.
 All the building going on in that property, all
what the Department of Water Supply have done since
1976 is either they were not told about those building
structures, building permit and all their actions are
pending, so I don't know why up to now we have numbers
of structures there, eight of them going on and there
seems to be no improvement on those water system.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  It's still got one 3-quarter-inch meter.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And 3-quarter-inch water meter is
being used by eight parcels, eight subject property of
30 gpm, and I think that's not to our standards.  So I
don't know why the previous hui owners were able to
pass those building permit applications, although
actions of the Board and Department are all pending.
I had a question about that.
 Now, I'm going back to our corporation counsel.
What are the legal remedies we can do to stop this
from going on, Mr. Corp Counsel, there's nothing we
can do?
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  To stop this from going on,
well, the arrangements that the hui partners may have
in how they use their property, you know, that's up to
them.  It appears that, you know, your suspicions may
have some basis, may have some merit.  I don't know.
You know, I really couldn't comment on that.
 However, if, as has been represented, the houses
and structures that are currently there have received
building permits and approvals, you know, it appears
that they've gone through at least the letter of the
law to comply.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Maui County Code states clearly
that you're entitled only one dwelling, a second
dwelling unit per property.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, if it's ag property, you
can put on ag dwellings, agricultural dwellings that
are related to our ag usages, employee housing for
your farm workers, et cetera.  There are exceptions to
the rule of having, you know, one house and one guest
cottage and particularly in agricultural lands.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And like what's been stated by Ms.
Johnston, this property is not using ag rates.  They
are paying residential rate; is that right?
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  Yeah, that's right, more than ag
rates.  Let me address myself to your observation and
to Mr. Craddick's.  The Land Use and Codes required
proof that Peter was involved in agricultural
activity, and they have given that approval.  So as
far as they're concerned, what he's doing there is
agricultural, and the dwelling he has is in
conjunction with agricultural use.
 As far as what the hui is doing, I tell my
clients, I say, "The last thing you want to do is own
property with somebody else."  Even a wife, you get
around it, or a husband, you just don't do it because
there always are problems in hui ownership.  And this
parcel has certainly not been the exception to the
rule, and I've tried to mercifully spare all the
details about what's gone on in this property.
 Please be assured, Mr. Tagorda, it's my
understanding that the current hui members, and
there's been a change in the membership since the
original partnership agreement, their intent has been
to subdivide.  To do that, if you have a bunch of
members, you've got to all agree on the subdivision
and go forward and come up with the money, which I
mean just the water requirements will be very
considerable.  Nobody there -- there's only Mr.
Coshever and Mr. Pollock and Mr. Yacooshin actually
live on the property.  The money hasn't been there,
and the ability to work towards that hasn't been
there.  There's been a lot of divisiveness there.
 I haven't been able to put my hand on the file
that's gone on, complaints by Mr. Pollock to all the
hui members, but I understand it's about that thick.
When Peter bought into that, he bought half of Noel
Johnson's ownership in the property, and remember,
this is an ownership in a partnership that owns the
property.
 So what each of the hui members has is a
percentage interest in the partnership, not in the
property itself.  When Peter bought in and acquired
the partnership interest, it gave him the right to
utilize half of 2.5 acres, and I've got the
percentages of the partnership in the partnership
registration document that are part of the packet that
I submitted.  His understanding is that he would put
his shed up to do his nursery and that eventually he
would live there so he could tend to it because the
roundtrip from Kihei to Ulupalakua absent the famous
upcountry road is a pretty long one.
 What happened was that Mr. Pollock went in and
built two structures, both of which were permitted.
One was for a kitchen in conjunction with his ag
product, which was to dry bananas.  That has been
converted and basically is not being used for that
anymore.  That's a whole separate issue how that
permit was gotten.
 Mr. Coshever went in and got his, okay.  So by
the time Peter came along, he turns out to be the
fourth structure on the property, although probably he
was the second structure on the property, maybe the
third, fourth structure kicks you into all the
subdivision requirements.  The basic line is his
dwelling or building is exactly what was there in '94
ahead of everybody else's.  He just didn't race in and
get a permit back then.  If he had, we wouldn't be
here today and we would have not problems.
 And he was confident and the hui members told
him this is the way it would be, they would be able to
share.  They have I guess delineated areas they can
use on the property.  It's not an attempt to avoid
subdivision.  It's just a way to try as best they can
to live peacefully together.  That doesn't always
work, but this is not an uncommon arrangement.  I've
represented a couple of huis out in Hana that have had
the same kind of arrangement.  It's turned out just
about as -- much worse than this particular
arrangement.  This is a pretty good one.
 So please be assured that they're not trying to
avoid subdivision.  They want to do that and make life
a lot easier for everybody.  As far as the Easy Street
people, the Bailey partition occurred back in '70s.
And I don't really know very much about that.  I
probably learned more from reading this report.
 My understanding is the 7 parcels there, the
owners all were hooked -- Bailey, the property in the
Bailey subdivision property resolved was all off of
one water meter.  When they subdivided, whatever
process that was, appeared to be before some of the
regulations were in place.  They just stayed hooked
up.  And they now, they are multi-million-dollar
homes, not multi-million, but very nice homes.  Some
of them have two homes on them.  When I got all the
information from the real property office to do the
flow rates, there's swimming pools and ohana units and
big structures.  And it's obvious they each want their
own meter because that's really going to increase the
value of the property.  They can pool together with
the money to do that.  They can come up with the 200
or $300,000 it's going to cost because they're going
to have a significant improvement in their property
value, not so much so with the Noel Johnson hui.
 As far as Peter's participating, he's gotten
mailings.  I'm unaware anyone has contacted him.  I
talked to Ted Isaacson a few months ago.  He's never
called me, never contacted me.  As far as I know, he's
never contacted Peter.  Peter has had a couple of
letters that have passed through John Pollock, the
person who has filed numerous complaints against him.
But there's never been anything clearly put in front
of Peter like, "Here is the day you've got to pay up."
 We've talked about it.  We've agreed there will
be some at least benefit, although at this point, if
he's not even going to get a flow rate he can use, I'm
not quite sure what that is, but he's never declined
to participate.
 No one has ever come and knocked on his door and
said, "Now is the time for the check."  So I don't
know where the information came from.  It seems like
hearsay information.  It would be nice if somebody had
called either me or Peter directly to verify that.
But he is willing to do what needs to be done.  That's
going to help him.
 And we understand that when Easy Street people
go off the meter, it will help.  As far as the reason
why they're not on agricultural rates right now, which
should actually make the County happy because they're
paying a lot more in residential, somehow has
something to do with Mr. Pollock's complaining about
Easy Street.  And the County came in and decided,
well, these are not ag lots, so we're going to have
them go to residential rates, so that's a plus for the
County.  They're getting more money.
 Peter is doing an agricultural enterprise.  He's
not trying to avoid subdivision.  I know the property
owners would like to someday do that.  I'm sure they
would like to get out of each other's faces.  In the
meantime, the problem is still here.  How long is he
going to have to wait?
 He's living there basically, and he makes no
bones about that.  The County knows that.  He just
wants to be able to live there legally and not be
subject to being cited.  I hope that answers your
questions about that.
 It's an uneasy situation.  It's hopefully an
interim situation, and all Peter can do at this point
is take care of his kuleana that he has there and try
to make the best of it.  And whatever happens down the
line, it happens.  And someday we will have a good
system up there, and it won't be a problem.  People
will be able to get bigger and larger water meters.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Any other
questions?  Clark.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So would Peter be willing to
participate with his neighbors?
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  Yeah, he's never said he wouldn't.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Why doesn't he approach the parties?
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  Well, as I said, I had a very
specific conversation with Mr. Isaacson, and to date,
you know, I have a file folder here on Easy Street
with the communications.  And mostly what's come out
from Mr. Isaacson is just general information.  There
has been one request that was made.  You know, what
they described, they changed engineers.  They now have
an attorney.
 The last they said about two days ago was a
retainer agreement from Martin Luna, which I've just
had a chance to look at, but they want everybody on
all of the eight lots, all of the individuals to sign
on.  Well, I've just seen this.  What I want to know
is if Peter signs that, he's liable for all of that if
nobody else pays?  I mean it's not like, "You do
whatever we say."  I haven't really had a chance to
deal with this.
 He got a letter dated 11/5 November from Mr.
Pollock just saying, "This is what we should each
pay," but there was never -- there was never any
request for when the payment was to be made, where it
was to go.  It's just like a notice.  So this has been
the situation that all the communications have been
more of an informative.  Nobody has ever said until
this one two days ago, "Sign on the dotted line."
Yes, I can say that Peter is willing to contribute his
fair share, but that's never really been a problem.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I would just like to know if
there's a hui within a hui, why isn't the hui in here
instead of one person, you know, so that we know what
the group wants or doesn't want.
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  The way it's gone, they're each a
general partner in the partnership, and each general
partner has the right to speak on behalf of the whole
partnership.  And that's the way it was done by Mr.
Pollock and that's the way it was done by Mr.
Coshever.  They each came in with an individual
application for their particular structure.
 At this point, they've already done what they've
done, which is put Peter in a position where he's
having to incur a great deal of time, attorney's fees
to get in probably the smallest structure on the
property.  Their requirement under the partnership
registration is for any dedication of an interest in
the property, which will be the roadway section.
There has to be a certain percentage, so in that way,
they are involved.  But pretty much they are able to
go each on their own because it is a partnership.  If
it was held in common, it would be a little different
situation.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Orlando.  That's what you was
going to ask, yeah?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Something like that.  Like I said,
I have made up my mind based on the information that
you have here with the subject parcel, I am really
going to deny, Mr. Chairman, that building permit.
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  Mr. Tagorda, is there anything
else I could provide you that would maybe help change
your mind?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I believe this hui should really
do their share in the community and not keep on
building things, not following the rules, County
Codes, regulations set up by the Department, went into
public hearing, all that.
 You have already so many structures there, and
if I'm not mistaken, Maui County Codes allow in any
district one or two dwellings only.  You can go on
with another dwelling, third or fourth, but that
subdivision requirement is going to kick in.  You are
developing.  You are subdividing.  Whether you like it
or not, that's what you are doing.
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  Let me put it this way.  The
original structure that Peter built was permitted,
okay.  Had no water, didn't have to come to the Water
Department.  So he went out, he got the permit, he put
his structure in.  His mistake was not flying in ahead
of Mr. Pollock or Mr. Coshever, however you want to
look at it.
 As far as the subdivision requirements under
Land Use and Codes, we are in that.  We are dealing
with the subdivision requirements the County is
imposing.  We are working with them to do that.  We've
got an agreement that's in the process of being
documented as what they need to require for a
roadway.  So we are following exactly what the Code
requires us to do.  The Water Department is
different.  They have a different requirement, so we
come to you and say, "Water Department, Water Board,
for your requirement to get your signature on the
building permit along with the other signatures we
have to have, this is what we're asking."
 And it's my understanding, and I haven't been
here before and I'm not all that familiar, is that
we're doing exactly what we're supposed to do.  When I
spoke to Mr. Abe after he wrote his letter denying
saying we had to meet these requirements and I met
with him and I went through the file on this property
and he said, "You need to go to the Board."
 So I went to the Board and it was referred to
your committee.  So the answer is I think we're doing
exactly -- we've complied with what the Land Use and
Codes want on subdivision and all the other
requirements including the 2000 fee.  And now we're
just asking from the Board to do what has to be done
on the water side.  And I just, I don't know what else
we could do.
 This isn't a subdivision.  My guy is still stuck
with four other people, and they can either go forward
to subdivide it or go through the process.  And I
think someday they will do that process.  That's a
different process than what we're trying to do.  I
hope I could persuade you a little bit.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I really, because, like I said, we
need to fully comply with any rules and regulations
being set by any departmental agency.  And our
Department of Water Supply has a fire protection
requirement that we need to comply.
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  I understand, but I also
understand it has been waived not only for this land
twice before, but for a lot of other people who have
the same kind of situation.  That is part of your
procedure that you can waive that.  You're the
committee.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I know that, and to look at the
notification of requirement that the Board has the
authority to do anything, I don't think so.  Because
we need to take the full context of that provision,
provided it says that the users in that vicinity will
not be affected adversely.
 
MS. JOHNSTON:  Well, I understand from reading
the notifications that were done is basically what
you're asking the applicant to do, in this case, Mr.
Yacooshin, is just to recognize what's there is not
adequate, kind of like what the County has already
done as far as fire control.  They say no County
water, so it's no liability anyway.  And Mr. Yacooshin
is willing to do that in writing, waive all
liability.  If it burns down, it's not your fault.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Ms. Johnston, it's so easy to say
that, and what's going to happen with the community?
Everybody will be coming here asking the Board, you
waived this for that person, you got to waive mine,
too.  So, Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny the
building application permit of Mr. Yacooshin.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Moved and seconded.  I would
like to interject that there may be a way for them to
meet with the rest of the hui on Easy Street.  Will
you be open to that alternative, Mr. Tagorda?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  They can do anything they want to
do, Mr. Chairman, provided that they need to comply
with some of our rules and regulations.  Whatever the
hui, whatever the Easy Street residents think would be
for their best interest, and if it's going to be in
conformity with the Department and the Board, then I
go along with it.  I'm not a very insensitive person,
Ms. Johnston.  I just need for everybody to really,
fairly apply rules and regulations that we have
strictly.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Okay.  Any further discussion by
the members?
 
(No response.)
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  All those in favor signify by
saying "aye."
 
VOICES:  Aye.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Opposed, "no."
 
(No response.)
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Motion is carried.  Thank you.
Take a ten-minute recess, and we will be returning to
deal with Communication 01-02.  Thank you.
 
(Recess taken.)
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Call the meeting back to order.
Taking up Communication 01-02, request for the waiver
of the subdivision requirement Manawai Homesteads Tax
Map Key 2-8-003:020 on behalf of Ron and Dawna
Richmond.  Hi guys.
 
MR. RICHMOND:  I'm Ron, and this is my wife
Dawna.  We're married, and we own the property
together.  We're okay with that.  And this is Jack
Naiditch and he's my lawyer.  And I've been -- I'm a
retired firefighter with over 20 years in civil
service, and I want to appropriate this kind of from
my moral and ethical side of what I know from civil
service.  And if there's legal things, Mr. Naiditch
will cover it.  And I can probably do my whole thing
in six minutes.  I'm just going to read the letter
again real quick and then I'll go through a couple of
points and I'll be pau.
 "Dear Mr. Chairman, the following is a
chronological breakdown of my attempts to gain written
official policy from the Department of Water Supply.
 Late January 1999, I contacted Engineer Herb
Chang to get clarification on a hybrid subdivision in
which I would keep the existing water meter on a
2-acre parcel and the remaining 10 acres would be on a
private system.  He directed me to contact Mr.
Craddick, which I did on February 9, 1999.  On
February 22, 1999, Mr. Craddick replied.  In his
letter, he answered none of my questions; he simply
stated some of the criteria under consideration,
ending with a final reminder that those criteria had
not been adopted as policy.
 I again contacted Engineer Herb Chang.  In this
meeting, I was told that hybrid systems did exist and
that "officially" I would have to give up my meter.
 At this meeting, I also attempted to gain
answers to some of the following questions:
1:  Who sets fire protection requirements for
the County of Maui -- Department of Water or Maui Fire
Department?
2:  Why are fire protection requirements (flow
rates) twice what Maui Fire Department require?
3:  Why are the fire protection systems required
by the Department of Water not inspected for
serviceability?  (These questions have significance
for me, as I am a Retired Firefighter).
4:   Have the rules as they apply to hybrid
water systems been equally enforced, and if not, why?
5:   Have those above rules been changed, and if
so, have they gone through a public hearing process
with final ratification by the County Council and Mayor?
 To all these questions, Mr. Chang would not
 officially respond.
 At this point, I contacted LUCA and told them I
would agree to Department of Water's official
policies, one of which I believed after my meeting
with Mr. Chang was to relinquish my existing water meter.
 I continued to contact the Department of Water
attempting to get answers to the above questions and
attempting to get official written rules.  Through
this process I was informed hybrid systems have
existed for years and there was no consistent
treatment of them as this was a "gray area."  I could
attain no "official written policy" from anyone.
 On April 10 and 11, 2000, I received two more
letters in which Mr. Craddick attempted to, one, have
LUCA pull my building permits, and, two, impose
$400,000 of improvements.
 I contacted LUCA, and they told me to keep
going, as they would not pull my permits.  I received
legal counsel regarding the improvements issue and was
told, one, they were unenforceable as the Department
of Water didn't have the authority; and, two, that
there must be an equitable balance between cost of the
improvements and benefit gained.  In view of the
request for reduction of service (two acres served by
a water meter versus 12 acres and no additional new
meters requested) a $400,000 improvement would be
viewed as inequitable.
 On April 17, 2000, I again attempted to contact
Mr. Craddick for official written policy.
 On April 28, 2000, Mr. Craddick responded.
Again, no official written policy.  At this point, he
also stated he did not have the authority to tell me
to disconnect my meter.
 On January 4th, 2001, I met with Mr. Craddick
along with my legal counsel, Mr. Jack Naiditch.  In
this meeting, the two sides did not agree, and I left
the meeting very angry at two responses Mr. Craddick
had made.  One, he called the area where I live a
"rat's nest"; and, two, when told that the
improvements he wants would cost more than my land and
all the improvements on it, he said that was too bad.
 This process has gone on now for more than two
years.  I have only asked for official written policy
of the Department of Water.  I have never received it.
Subdivision water system improvements.  Therefore, I
am asking the Board to waive subdivision water system
improvements.  This, I view, as a win/win situation
for the Board of Water Supply and my family.  Ten
acres of agricultural land planted in fruit and
hardwood trees is permanently removed from the County
System.  Also I can move forward with plans to take
care of my family with no further interaction with the
Department of Water Supply.  Thank you for your time
and consideration."
 Do any of you need copies of these?  All right.
In my first letter to Mr. Craddick, I followed chain
of command as you would in normal civil service.  I
went from the junior engineer to the senior engineer
and from the senior engineer to the Director of the
Department.  Everybody knew exactly what I wanted to
do.  I told them unequivocally I want no more meters.
I want to take 10 acres out.  There's an existing
meter.  I want to leave it on a 2-acre parcel.  All
right.  There's no sneakiness, okay.
 My response from Mr. Craddick was that a new
meter cannot be approved for your additional lot,
okay.  I never asked for meters.  I didn't want any
meters.  Straightforward, no more meters.  Okay.  He
goes on and he says, "The following are some of the
criteria under consideration."  He lists a bunch of
criteria.  These are considerations.  These are under
consideration.
 He finishes the letter, "As a reminder, the
criteria described above are being considered and have
not been adopted as policy."  So in his official
response to me, he said I can't have a meter.  I
didn't ask for one.  And he told me stuff that might
come under consideration and has not been adopted as
policy.  That's his official response to me.
Ethically, morally, in civil service, that's not how
it's done.  I asked for guidance.  I told him what I
wanted, and this is what I got.  Okay.  Go on to the
hybrid system, okay.  Hybrid systems do exist in the
County.  By hybrid system, I mean there's a
subdivision that has been done.  There may be a water
meter, there may be private systems all intermixed.
These hybrid systems have existed for years, okay.
The big problem I have, they have not been treated
equally.  Under civil service, equal, even playing
field, we're all treated the same.
 Okay.  And my final response here, okay.  This
letter that Mr. Craddick sent to you guys to the
Oversight Committee.  Okay, it's a recapsulation of
all my letters, but also there's more in here.  Okay.
In this letter to you guys, he provides the rules and
regulations and the requirements, okay.  He shows you
maps.  He tells you exactly what he wants.  He sent it
to you.
 In two years of me dealing with the Department
of Water Supply, I have never received this.  I have
never been given this.  And, you know, that's really
the end of my story here.  Some of the cornerstones of
civil service, in 20 years that I was in civil
service, you treat everybody honestly.  If there's a
problem, you nip it in the bud.  If you don't know an
answer, you pass it on, take it to somebody that's
going to give an answer.
 When you're asked for official policy, you give
it.  It's in black and white.  And in all things,
we're all treated equally.  And I do not think the
Department's met those standards in my case in this
situation.  Thanks.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Tagorda.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I would like to thank you for
these things you just read.  Mr. Richmond, I myself am
not aware or familiar with hybrid system.  I would
like to hear from you, what do you mean by hybrid
systems?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Your own words.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Your own words.
 
MR. RICHMOND:  Talking to the engineers in the
Department, there are systems that have occurred in
the past where there were subdivisions done.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  We're talking about the County of Maui?
 
MR. RICHMOND:  Right, County of Maui where there
may have been a meter and people subdivided.  They
went to catchment.  They didn't ask for new meters.
They went to wells.  They did other things, but they
kept the meter.  They didn't have to give up the
meter, okay.  And there's been -- the engineers told
me there's all kind of weird things where one meter
will serve four or five lots or serve four or five
different houses, okay.
 There's been really no hard and fast rules.
Things haven't been treated equally.  Some developers
might subdivide say four or five parcels agricultural
land.  There might have been two meters on the
parcel.  They kept the two meters, you know, at the
existing.  They kept the meters, and then they
provided a separate water supply for the other lots.
They didn't get more meters.  Okay.  But they were
always forced to give up the existing meter.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Thank you so much.  Mr. Craddick,
can I, Mr. Chairman.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, please.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Would you explain to me in details
what you know about the hybrid systems.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  The only ones that I know about
where there is a private system and our system
coexisting is when somebody has a meter or lot and
they have a private fire system like South Point in
Kihei or maybe the Palms at Wailea.  They've got a
private fire system in there, but they've got a
separate meter for the buildings.  And we know of
those kinds, those are approved.  As far as these
condominiumized lots where we don't know what's going
on, we have no knowledge of that going on, and if they
go on, you know, some of them rise to the surface.
Some of them don't, but the one that came to the Board
before also in Manawai -- this whole Manawai
subdivision, you have to understand, was a
consolidation and resubdivision.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I just like to go on with the
hybrid system.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  That's all I can say about it.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  So the hybrid system does exist in
the County of the Maui?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Other than the one that the Board
didn't take action on, the other Manawai subdivision,
the one where, what's his name, Schmidt came in.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Mr. Chairman.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  And you might, I don't know if
the engineers, if they know of some.  I mean I don't
know of any, so if they know of some.
 
MR. CHANG:  I think in my discussion with Ron
when I mentioned other hybrids, the only one I could
think of was two others in Manawai.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  In Manawai, yeah.  So they're not
all over the place.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So you're asking for retaining
your meter for your two acres, and your 10 acres would
be in the private water system?
 
MR. RICHMOND:  Yes, sir.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So you're saying that they have
to remove the meter?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I think all you need to do is
read the definition of a private water system in the
rules, and the private water system says a system that
is completely built by the developer.  If we're
supplying water, it's not completely built by the
developer, so it's not a private water system.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So if it's a separate 10 acres,
he has to subdivide?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  No, no, the whole 12 acres is the
subdivision.  We're supplying him with water to the
lot right now.  He wants to subdivide, okay.  We're
already supplying water to one of the lots.  Just
because the other ten aren't supplied by us doesn't
make it a private system.  If the whole thing is
private, it's private.  Then we have nothing to say.
 But we don't have the choice of telling them to
give up the meter.  If they say, "I want to give up my
meter and make a private system," we say, "Okay, have
at it," and we're out of it.  But as long as they're
continuing to use our water for some of the lots, we
say they have to comply with our requirement.  And I
think we made that very plain to them.  I pulled out
the rule book.  We went over the definition of a
private water system, and it's very clear a private
water system is not a hybrid water system.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Sir, can I say something,
please.  I'm Jack Naiditch.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Hi Jack.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  The property has already been
subdivided.  The final subdivision approval has
already been approved for this subdivision.  It's
already subdivided.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  On the basis that you said it was
a private system, which it's not.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Excuse me, Mr. Craddick.  His
understanding was that he would be throughout this
process this was developed -- when did you guys get
the final subdivision approval?
 
MR. RICHMOND:  October '99.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  He got final in October of '99.
Prior to that, he been in contact with the Water
Department on what his plans were that he was going to
reduce the usage to 2-acre parcel and have the other
10 acres served by a private water system and that was
set up by the overall developer of this whole project,
which is Kajo and Peter Martin, so this property has
already been subdivided.  Here is the map of the
subject subdivision that he's already accomplished,
and this is the parcel that is served right now by the
water meter where we want to keep the water meter existing.
 This is the other property here which we're
taking out of the water system.  We're reducing water
usage by five-sixths, 10 acres out of 12.  So I just
want to make that point clear that.  And there also is
going to be fire protection for these lots.  They're
going to have fire protection.  When they get their
building permits, they're going to be getting fire
protection requirements with the Fire Department.
 So we don't see -- first of all, we don't see
any negative impact here on the water usage.  In fact,
it's a positive.  We're taking 10 acres out of the
private -- out of the County of Maui water meter.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  Mr. Chairman.  Herb, you said
there's hybrid systems at Manawai subdivisions?
 
MR. CHANG:  There's two others, three total.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  How do the others run?
 
MR. CHANG:  I think they have all retained the
original meter, so I think one is a 3-lot subdivision,
another one is a 2-lot subdivision.  And they kept the
original five-eighths meter, so each of these hybrids
have one serving them.  I don't know about all the of
the property.  At least one of the lots I'm not sure.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So they have the County water
meter plus their own private water system?
 
MR. CHANG:  I'm not sure whether they actually
dug their own wells or are sharing with someone else.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  They have wells.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Mr. Tagorda.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Yeah, Mr. Chairman.  I would like
to follow-up one thing, Herb.  You said there's a
hybrid system in Manawai.  Are you saying the
Department system and a private system mixed
together?
 
MR. CHANG:  Yeah.  Originally, I think there was
nine or 12 lots.  Each of them have their own separate
private meters all along the highway, and this is like
a mile down this whole subdivision stretches, so now
these 3 of the 12 owners have each subdivided their
lots.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Let's focus on this parcel right
here that Mr. Richmond is here for.  This is already
subdivided into three lots as I understand.
 
MR. RICHMOND:  Yes, sir.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And you have one meter, and that
meter is going to be utilized in the one lot, the side
that you are going to subdivide again into another lot?

MR. RICHMOND:  No, that's it.  The County,
everybody -- they have a three-lot or less agreement,
subdivision agreement with the County.  If you do
three lots or less, they waive improvements.  If you
go over three lots, you've got to do all the
improvements, and it would be financially impossible
to split more than three ways for anybody.
 
 MR. NAIDITCH:  This lot is not being
resubdivided.  This is a flag lot, the 2-acre.  It's
not being resubdivided.  It can't.  It's a 2-acre lot
on ag land.
 
MR. RICHMOND:  What I'm attempting to do, I'm
building a cottage here.  I'm giving it to my dad.
I'm going to build a house here for my wife and
myself.  That's it.  We want to sell that with a
garage on it.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  But excuse me, I'm sorry.  I just
want to make sure I'm clear here.  You have one meter
for this whole lot?
 
MR. RICHMOND:  That's correct, and I want to
take the 10 acres out and subdivide it.  I want to
take this 3-acre parcel and this 8-acre parcel and
provide everything from them off my well and
catchment.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I think we have a problem with
that, Mr. Richmond, based on our standards and rules
and regulations that we have a policy, I don't know if
it's a policy or a rule, that one lot per meter.  And
you cannot utilize one meter to cross lot lines.
 
MRS. RICHMOND:  We're not doing that.  It's all
separated.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  One at a time, please.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Lot B3 -- lot B3, B1 and B2 are
the subdivision that's already been approved.  Lot B3
is going to be served by a well, private well.

CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Private system.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Private system.  Lot B1 is going
to be served by a private system.  No County water.
The only thing that gets County water is the one in
pink is lot B2, and it's already being served by this
meter.  This particular parcel actually is already
being served by the meter.

MR. CRADDICK:  The whole parcel?
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Yeah, but this one, this is where
the meter is going, and we've already carved out this
particular TMK for that meter's use.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Do we have any problem?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Mr. Tagorda.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Do we have any problem, Mr.
Craddick, with that proposition?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Again, going back to the
beginning of this thing, there's nine lots created by
this consolidated of this subdivision, undevelopable
lots that were taken, put together, reconfigured so
they could develop them.  Every one of those nine lots
can do what they're doing, so you can end up with 27
of these things in the end and probably even more.
 I mean they say this is going to be like this
now, but you know somebody is going to subdivide this
later on in the future.  Anything that's over 2 acres
will eventually get subdivided.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  So what you're saying is that you
doubt that because there is a Department of Water
system there, that it's usage will be going to the --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  You know, Orlando, I don't want
to say that.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I just like to get something here.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  All I'm doing is looking at the
rule book of what a private subdivision is, and a
private subdivision is one that says the developer
does it all and the subdivision is the subdivision.
You don't come in after the fact and say, oh, hey, we
whittled all this away and our meter that was serving
this whole thing is now only serving this.
 You know, that again is just sneaking around
because it's the rules.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  The reason I ask this,
Mr. Chairman, is since there is one meter that is
already installed there servicing the whole lot, 12
acres, and there is no empowerment from the Department
or Board to get that water meter disconnected unless
the owner is going to relinquish that voluntarily.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  The developer is not requesting
anymore meters though.  Yes, Mr. Corporation Counsel,
please assist us in our endeavor.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I may be wrong, and the
Department or the engineers can correct me, but it was
my understanding that the reason the Department has
adopted a policy of not mixing private water systems
and public water systems in the same subdivision is an
operational consideration, and that consideration is
that the Department has no way to control, to monitor
whether the private system is going to be somehow
surreptitiously hooked up to the public system, and
that was my understanding of the reason of the
policy.
 You know, I just wanted to bring that out so the
Board is aware that the Department has a reason for
not allowing these types of hybrid systems.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  I think it's more than that,
Howard.  It's the definition of the rule.  Why did the
Board put that in the rules, the definition of a
private system, that it's a system completely built by
the private developer, and this is clearly not
completely built by the private developer.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  The thing is the rules also do
not prohibit the system that's being proposed, and it
doesn't say.  The assumption is it's only private or public.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Actually, it does.  It says the
service is supposed to be on the line adjacent to the
property.  These are, as I don't know who said it, a
mile away from where the meter is.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  No, but those are the lots that
are part of the private system.  The lot that's served
with the meter, it has a meter already.  And if that
is your problem, maybe the Department shouldn't have
issued a meter in the first place.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  We only issued it because corp
counsel said we had to do when that original
consolidation and resubdivision came out.  Otherwise,
they wouldn't have meters.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Any other questions from the
members?  Chair would recommend approval for this
meter.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, I have some other
questions for me to get enlightened.  In your
statement, Mr. Richmond, you are willing to relinquish
your meter, but you ask questions like do you get a
credit, how are you going to get some meters when
there will be meters available in this system, in this
area, right?  Because that seems to be the problem
there with your holding of your water meter.
 
MR. RICHMOND:  What I was led to believe, what I
was told, it was official policy that I had to give up
my water meter, okay.  I said, okay, from my
background in civil service, something is being taken
from me.  I bought the property.  It's got a certain
amount of value with the meter.  Now, this meter is
being taken away, okay.  I want to know how I'm going
to get it back.  I don't want anymore meters.  I want
to know how I'm going to get it back.  It's been taken.
 And, in fact, it's borderline kind of theft.
We're taking this thing away.  We're not going to give
you any money.  Some of the stories I got back was,
"Okay, when the meters are available, you can buy it
back at the new price, okay.  We're not to give you
the old price when it cost 700 bucks, whatever.  Now,
you can buy it back at the new price at $2,000 when it
comes back.  Then we're going to add a little
benefit.  You want to buy the meter back?  Good deal.
You got to bring in a six-inch main from the Hana
Highway.  Okay.  So you can have the meter back, but
it's only going to really cost you the 2,000, whatever
the cost is now for the meter, plus your $400,000 to
bring your main in.  That seems pretty fair."
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Can I just interject.  This
conclusion that he had to give up the meter, he made
that a couple of years ago when he was told by the
Department he had to.  He subsequently talked to a
number of people including Howard on the phone.  You
may not remember.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I remember.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  And Howard said, "You don't have
to give up your meter."  So he made that concession,
that thought, because he thought he had to give up the
meter.  Now he realizes he doesn't have to give up the
meter, but that was what went into his thinking
process back then.
 
MR. RICHMOND:  I was told straight out, "Is it
official policy that I have to give up the meter?"
The answer was unequivocally yes.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Orlando.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Just a follow-up.  Will you have a
problem there, Mr. Richmond, if that water meter will
be completely out of service and you're depending
entirely on your existing well and catchment basin
like you propose?
 
MR. RICHMOND:  No.  For the 10 acres, no.  If
the 2 acres gets the meter pulled, there's no water
service to it.  Nothing is interconnected.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So you already put in your lines
in the other 8 acres?
 
MR. RICHMOND:  Everything is broken off.
Everything is separate.  There's no interconnection.
The private system is feeding this lot, this lot.  The
County meter feeds this lot.  There's no
interconnection whatsoever.  In terms of what's
happening here, we're in 50 to 60 inches of rainfall.
With a combination of catchment, there's plenty, and
the well puts out almost 2,500 gallons an hour.
There's plenty.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Can I say something.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, please.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Would you want him to agree that
these lots will never try to access the water meter?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Yes.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Okay.  That's totally fine.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  That's what he wants.  Yes, Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Could I maybe make a discussion.
We seem to have Howard saying that the rules don't
really mean what they say.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Wait a minute, wait a minute,
David, I'm not saying that.  Don't put words in my mouth.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Howard, let me finish.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, I object to that
characterization.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  It shall be noted in the log.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  If the Board can deal with that
what the definition of a private water system is, then
none of these are going to come back to the Board.  As
long as that Board doesn't deal with that definition
of a private water system, these are going to keep
coming back to the Board because we have no
guidelines.  We just have the Board waiving, "Oh, this
guy looks like a good guy.  He was a fireman, and
we're going to let him go."
 
MR. TAGORDA:  David, I don't see it that way.  I
see it he had a meter.  He doesn't want to relinquish
it.  He has the right to use it.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Look at your definition of a
private water system.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  A private water system is not
connected to the Department's system, so this is not
going to be connected to the private system.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  All I can say is read your
definition of a private water system.  Have your
attorney tell you that a private water system is not
really a private water system.  It doesn't have to be
totally built by the private developer, and then we're
out of here.  We will then have firm policy direction
to not tell any of these people to come into the Board
anymore.  We will be able to say, Oh, yeah, this
really meets the Board's definition of a private water
system, and if you do that, these will be resolved
once and for all instead of piecemeal one by one, one
guy comes in and another guy comes in and we really
don't want to be before the Board.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Quite frankly, even taking into
account the definition of a private water system, I'm
not aware of any prohibition that you can't have a
private water system and a parcel that's served by the
public water system in the same subdivision.  And I'm
not aware of any prohibition.  And if the Department
can point me out to any particular provision in its
rules that prohibits this sort of -- Dave, let me
finish -- that prohibits this sort of proposal, you
know, it's going to be news to me.  As Member Tagorda
has pointed out, that the private system is going to
be private and it's going to be serving the two lots.
And that fits the definition of a private water
system, a water system constructed, owned and operated
and maintained by private individuals, corporations or
organizations for those two lots.
 And again, I'm not aware of any prohibition in
the Board's rules that say that a subdivision must be
served by either a private water system or a public
water system but not both.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Could you just repeat that.  I
don't think she got that on tape.
 
MS. NAGO:  The court reporter got it.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  I don't know if it was worth it though.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Any further questions, Mr.
Tagorda, Mr. Hashimoto?
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So could the assurances -- have
the engineers gone and checked the system to see it's
totally not connected?
 
MR. RICHMOND:  Anytime they want.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Can I -- you know, look at it
from the bigger picture.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  You're out of order.  Mr.
Tagorda, what you have?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  I'm reading this Section 211 on
ownership installed water system, Mr. Chairman.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Keep in mind, Orlando, on 211,
the private water system portion was deleted out of
there a few years ago.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  But according to counsel, it
doesn't say -- it doesn't say that you cannot have a
private and a County water system in the same
subdivision.  What is your objection?  Let's put it
that way.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Let's say every other house in
Kahului says, "Hey, I'm not going to hook up to the
water system."
 
MR. TAGORDA:  And?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  What do you got there?
 
MR. TAGORDA:  You've got a source, an existing well.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Meanwhile -- well, anyways, I'll
leave that up to the Board.  If that's the way the
Board wants to have this system, have at it.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  It sounds like, if I may,
Mr. Chairman, the Department and the Director are
concerned with enforcement policy or enforcing
matters.  They're afraid that people are going to hook
up, if it's every other house in Kahului that's hooked
up to the system, that every other -- all the other
houses are going to somehow tap into the public
system.  And, you know, I don't know if that's a
realistic fear or not, I really don't.

MR. CRADDICK:  We can tell you it is realistic.
We have no way to administer something like that, and
if the Board wants to do that, you're the
policy-making group.  Just make it very clear is all
we can ask.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Richmond.
 
MR. RICHMOND:  In your rules, it talks about the
loss of a water meter.  You don't pay your bill, you
cross property lines, you sell water, you share
water.  If I do any of that, you come and pull that
meter out one second later.  I'm squared away.  You
know, it's not crossing.  The rules are in place for
that.  If somebody cheats, you yank the meter.  It's
in there.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  The Chairman seems that this
request is within the rules of the Department, and I
would recommend that we take to the Board an approval
of this waiver.  Is there a motion?
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Mike, can't you, rather than
approve the waiver, deal with the big issue and what
Howard is talking about there, deal with the big issue
so these don't have to come back to the Board at all
again?
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And if I may, Mr. Chair, I would
agree that if the Department -- strike that -- if the
Board believes that there is no prohibition against
these types of systems, then there's nothing to
waive.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Right, right.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  That if the Board believes that
that's, you know, upon advice of counsel, that that is
a reasonable interpretation of the rules, essentially
there's no waiver required and you're not waiving
anything in the rules that the rules don't so
provide.
 
MR. HASHIMOTO:  So shall we discuss the rules
then instead?
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Rules are within the Rules
Committee.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  Mr. Chair, the reason why we came
here was because we're in the process of -- there's a
buyer for this.  But the Department has told us,
"Well, you're going to have to -- you might lose your
meter or you might -- you know, you're going to have
to spend $400,000 to bring a six-inch line down.  You
have to move the meter down to here."  We need some
declaratory relief from you folks this is not going to
happen.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And I was going to suggest
that.  From what I understand, there may be a time
crunch here.  The other alternative that I could see
the Board doing is saying that, "Yes, we will" -- what
was I going to say?   Well, you can say, if this is
the way the rules read as the Department believes they
do, then we'll give them a meter.  Then at least it
won't jeopardize the sale that may be, you know,
that's happening now, and it will still serve the same
purpose.  And it will send a message to the Department
that that's how the Board feels.  And the Department
henceforth would not --
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Have these come to the Board.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  -- require waivers of
subdivision requirements in these types of situations
where a subdivision will be served by both a private
and a public system at the same time.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Yes, Mr. Tagorda.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  May I request for corp counsel to
study and make a legal opinion on what you just have
said so we can have some future guidelines --
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Certainly.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  -- when these things come up again.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  We would request that staff send
a request to our department for an opinion.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Can you do that, Mr. Craddick.
 
MR. CRADDICK:  Yeah.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  In the meantime, you don't want
to delay Mr. Richmond's --
 
MR. TAGORDA:  No, he said it plain and simple.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  My fear is that if we refer this
back to the Department, they're still going to bicker
with each other until one of them dies.  The situation
should be handled according to the written rules and
procedures.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, can I add one more
thing for your own awareness and information.  That
once you have your private water system and it's not
to the Department's standard and the Department
refuses that system, you've got to do all the desired
things.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  No, if they're a private system,
the Department has no jurisdiction of private water
system.
 
MR. TAGORDA:  But, like I said, there are so
many private water systems that fails in the past and
they come to the Department for rescue, and we cannot
rescue them because of the costs involved.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  And the other thing that there
be a further agreement that they not hook up to the
County system, quite frankly, I don't think that's
necessary.  I mean that's the law.  You can't hook up
to the County system unless you have approval of the
Department.  And so I think it's a little superfluous
to require that they not hook up to the public system
when that's already the law.
 
MR. NAIDITCH:  I didn't mean the create excess
work, but we're happy to do it.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  To help me now, how do we --

MR. TAGORDA:  Mr. Chairman, with the time
constraint given by the applicant and to follow corp
counsel's suggestion, I think we've got to approve
such a request by the applicant.  There's nothing to
waive.
 
MR. FUKUSHIMA:  Well, because there may be a
little -- there may be a little gray area for the
Board Members and because Mr. Tagorda has requested,
Member Tagorda has requested an opinion from our
office, that, in this case, waive the requirement,
although we don't believe there really is a
requirement, but waive it, and take it to the Board, 
recommend that approval be given and then we'll issue
our opinion for the Board's review and let the Board
take it from there.
 
 CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Thank you.  Second?
 
 MR. HASHIMOTO:  Second.
 
 CHAIR NOBRIGA:  All those in favor, say "aye."
 
 VOICES:  Aye.
 
 CHAIR NOBRIGA:  Okay, passed.  Thank you.
 
 MR. NAIDITCH:  Thank you very much.
 
 MR. HASHIMOTO:  It's going to go to the full
 Board.
 
CHAIR NOBRIGA:  There being no further business
for this committee meeting, the meeting is adjourned.
 
(The deposition concluded at 10:45 a.m.)
 
IWADO COURT REPORTERS, INC.