The Land Parcel Next To Ainakea Was never On The Short-list In 2008

Thanks to Peter Klika, Esq. we got a copy of the report submitted by Geometrician Associates LLC (hereafter referred to as Geometrician) to the County in 2008.

First there were 104 sites, then there were 24, and finally 4 sites already owned by the State of Hawaii were the finalists. The land parcel next to Ainakea was never in the picture, because it was way too close to a residential area.  Even a lesser populated area next to parcel TMK 355004034 off Lincoln Ave. was considered too residential, and was as such rejected.  How things can change, now a parcel next to the most densely populated area, Ainakea Village, in North Kohala, became the only acceptable site to process rubbish.

Below,quoted, are some important statements reflected in the report, which will help us to better understand the absurdity of the present site selection.

 Reference report by Geometrician Associates LLC  October 2008 - NORTH KOHALA
RECYCLING AND TRANSFER STATION
ALTERNATIVE SITE SURVEY

“DEM [Department of Environmental Management] would like the new site to be selected by the community, since residents know which location would be most convenient and would work best for them.”

Geometrician took the liberty to take the word of WasteStream members only, as the voice of the community, how shortsighted of them.  Here is a group of individuals who live in reasonable proximity to the current transfer station, which by the way was there before they moved to the area, and wish now to move the unwanted facility near somebody else's backyard. Instead of consulting with the community at large, Geometrician  took the single input from people with a self-serving agenda.

"The primary measures on which properties will be rated will include size, zoning, current property uses, slope and topography, road access, current and potential traffic issues, proximity of water and electric utilities, user community centrality, usefulness, hazardous substances or activities, drainage and flooding, flora, fauna, and ecosystems, known historic sites, and proximity to environmentally sensitive properties or resources."

“DEM determined that the optimum process for evaluating sites would include intensive community involvement, as the local community is best able to determine particular needs and is familiar with the existing uses and constraints of various potential sites.

Fortunately, there was an existing organization in North Kohala known as WasteStream, a group of about a dozen residents ...  "

The intense community involvement consisted of talking to twelve (12) WasteStream members.  How intense is that?  As stated above, WasteStream's motives are highly suspect, to say the least, and they certainly do not represent the wishes of the community.  In fact, over 125 residents voted 100% against WasteStream's agenda, at the November 10th, 2010 WasteStream meeting.  This represents at least a 10:1 ratio against the present site selection.

“In order to look widely and err on the side of inclusion, only the following criteria were
considered of primary importance at this step:
• At least three acres in size;
• Good highway or major County road access; and
• Within the east-west limits discussed above.
A total of 104 properties met these three criteria;…”

“SECONDARY CRITERIA AND EVALUATION
Selection criteria were refined at this point to include the following:
• Size, with eight acres as the desirable minimum
• Appropriate zoning (Agricultural or Urban, not commercial)
• No unsuitable current property uses
• Suitable slope and topography
• Good road access
• No current and potential traffic issues
• Proximity of water and electric utilities
• User community centrality
• No obvious evidence of hazardous substances or activities
• No obvious drainage or flooding hazards
• Non-native flora, fauna, and ecosystems
• No known historic sites
• Not near environmentally sensitive properties or resources.”
“YES, potentially a good choice,
MAYBE, but has problems, and
NO, definitely will not work”

One of the criteria was, " Not near environmentally sensitive properties or resources"; to me that reads not close to homes.  To WasteStream it read close to homes, apparently.

The four final sites selected by Geometrician in 2008 were:

"TMK/Acreage/Owner Description
5-5-007:005
40.57 acres
State of Hawai‘i

5-5-003:004
136.94 acres
State of Hawai‘i

5-5-006:002
44.50 acres
State of Hawai‘i 

5-5-006:003
404.12 acres
State of Hawai‘i"

Note: Descriptions are not shown.

“Given current evaluative criteria, these four sites are the only ones recommended for advancement for further study in an Environmental Assessment. It should be recognized that the wider public involvement expected in the early stages of the EA process may identify additional properties for consideration, or may reveal hitherto unknown information that could qualify previously excluded properties, which will be evaluated using the same criteria."

All of these parcel were far from the Ainakea Village, and other more populated areas. As far as I am  concerned, Geometrician Associates did a fairly good job at providing the County with good candidate sites, and it is impossible to understand, how the land parcel next to Ainakea Village finished up as the, so called, only acceptable waste processing site, out of 104 parcels examined.