Next we have minutes for the June ninth, twenty twenty-six uh subdivision committee meeting.

Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Therefore, uh, let's have a voice vote.

Do we accept the uh the minutes from approved.

Next, uh, there are no specific procedural items for the record before the agenda's post or how our substitute agenda being posted.

Some testimony submitted that has been circulated and is part of the public record online and is available for um review.

Um, so with that moving on to new business, we have G One preliminary subdivision map approval, so there's an application number S that's twenty twenty-six thirteen.

Richard A.

Littlestone Junior and Tony Ujima proposed two lot subdivision T MK two dash four dash zero zero one zero four four located collar hill.

We don't have any members of the public sign up to testify on this item.

However, if there are coming up there.

If there is something that wants to testify on the sign, please approach the microphone.

Hi, good morning.

Kanani Kagal for the record.

And just as a matter of housekeeping, I was not, and if it is, I am you could clarify I did not see the Kapakai analysis on these subdivisions that are in the packets that are agenda in today's subdivision committees.

And if they are, excuse my ignorance, I did not see them.

And it was just a clarification whether the planning department is requiring them for preliminary subdivision approval.

As I'm I was made aware that some subdivision application, when applicants submit subdivision applications, they are being requested or required to submit a kapacai analysis with the application in order to be accepted, the subdivision applications in order for the applications to be accepted by the department.

So with this particular agenda subdivision application within the subdivision packet, a kapacai analysis was not attached to that.

So I just wanted to put that for the record if the department is requiring this subdivision application to undergo a kapacai analysis and subsequently all other um agenda items today within the subdivision committee.

And that will be my generalized testimony for all agenda items today.

So I'll be speaking on each item today within this uh subdivision committee for that.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you.

If there's any questions, commissioners have on the testing or just testimony this morning.

Yeah.

Um it's become a standard with practice within the department.

So it's just wondering if that is something we are doing as this particular parcel is surrounded with area that could be potentially or have potential impact for cultural practices.

Three minutes right now.

Are you are you complete with your testimony?

Thank you.

Okay.

So does somebody want to discuss that specifically for this application or do we want to move on?

General, so I would yeah, if I could get this clarification process wise of subdivision applications, uh what is the department's protocol for consideration requiring kapata?

Any one of us can speak to that, maybe starting with Kaina.

Well, I can speak as it's an agendized item.

I can speak to the specifics of the agenda items.

If the commission would like a briefing on the overall Kapalkai analysis, that would be separate.

Yeah, that would be agenda is in particular.

We can we can do it as an educational presentation, but we can discuss application by application, how the department concluded either yes or no.

Whatever.

So since we're on this agenda item, should we address it?

Yeah, let's address it for this agenda item if that is possible.

So what has been posited as the Kapalkai analysis as required under the state constitution is an analysis to be made on whether or not cultural impacts cultural practices are occurring on the property that the proposed application would impact and in what manner can that impact be mitigated.

And so that analysis is required for all applications for subdivision.

Now, what we've also seen is that there are some levels of Kapalkai analysis will be a full-blown submittal and packaged item and some where it's not as robust, if you will.

Um, in order to make sure that the constitution standards are met, an analysis is made.

However, to the degree of what an applicant hires a consultant and conducts that analysis may vary.

It's ultimately at the end of the day, up to the commission on whether or not it meets their due diligence in reviewing it.

So you know for this one, I guess I would ask that the speaker has any specific cultural claims to this, and if there are cultural claims to this property and there are impacts within the proposal that are going to impact it, then indeed we need to you as a body need to take that into account and consideration upon reviewing this application.

I'd also like to add that if we're talking about um this residential area where I believe there's already a structure that I think we're still on the application S 2026-13.

Yes, little stone, right?

Um I believe that there is a structure on the on the property already.

So then the legal analysis is developed versus undeveloped.

This is this is a question that maybe for future education or briefing we could get more deeply into, but I think that case by case, starting with Little Stone, we can talk about whether or not the department has deemed this as developed, in which case a kabakai would not be required.

Sorry, I forgot that.

That last element just summarize that last part.

So in the in the case of a specific application, yes, where there are existing vertical buildings.