16 Water Resources Committee - Regular Meeting

The team. And And progress we've like to thank you us today. Now, I'd like to introduce thank the committee members. Committee Vice Chair, Yukile Sugimura.

Good afternoon, Chair.

Councilmember Gabe Johnson is on his way. Councilmember Tasha Kama is excused. Council chair Alice Lee is also excused. Good afternoon, Councilmember Tamara Palton. Councilmember Keanu Rollins Fernandez is currently excused. Councilmember Shane Seninsi, good afternoon.

Aloha. Good afternoon, chair. Here at my home office this afternoon, and there's no testifiers in honor, chair.

And good afternoon, councilmember Nohilani Uhu Hajans.

Good afternoon, chair. I'm in my personal vehicle right now, soon to have three minors in the car within the next forty five ish minutes. But I am here, and I probably will turn off my camera when I start driving more. Do we have quorum, though?

Yes. We have quorum with you.

So if I turn my camera off, will we still have quorum, or do I need to do I need to drive and multitask?

We will have quorum after, member Johnson comes. Currently, you're the fifth member.

Okay. Okay. I'll hang I'll hang tight. I'll make sure, we have enough people before I turn off my camera. But I can I can do both for a little while? Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. From the department of public works, director Jordan Molina. Director, are you online? In the future.

We're future. And we're be make sure we're make make we're to a for first of We have I'd like to take testimony after for receiving opening comments on Y27 and Y17. Thank you. Thank you members. Let's begin with our first item.

Members, Bill 110 addresses how the county's street improvement and requirements apply when existing properties are rebuilt or repaired after a major disaster. After the 20 after the August, many property owners in Lahaina faced the prospect of having to install new curbs, gutters, sidewalks or pavement as part of the rebuilding efforts. We building are in new will of a facility are company's safe made. We progress we of of with Directors At this time, Director Molina or Administrator Smith, would you like to provide any opening comments? John?

Chair, thank you for having us today. We really appreciate you bringing this bill forward and working with us in terms of its content now. We support the measure, and it's in line with our, long term recovery work in Lahaina. So thank very you much.

Thank you. And is Director Molina on staff? Director Molina, do you have any opening comments? The Director is on Teams. I'm not

sure if he's can turn on his camera or not.

We're

to we're

be get a the better what the We're going we're for agenda. And We the We take questions. If you are in person, please notify the staff you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of your testimony. Written testimony will continue to be accepted and can be submitted via e comment at mauicounty dot us agendas.

Staff will enable your microphone and video when it is your turn to testify. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes per item. If you're still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. You can view the meeting on Akaku Channel fifty three, Facebook Live or mauicounty.us agendas. Decorum will be maintained throughout this meeting. Breaching decorum includes anything that disrupts the orderly management of the meeting. Violation of the quorum may result in being removed from the meeting. At this time, I would like to open pub public testimony. Staff, please call the first testifier.

Thank you, chair. The first individual signed up to testify is Leo Koch, to be followed by to be followed by Warren Freeland.

Sure

and I'm not of local Maui LLC, which is owner of 744 Front Street, where Fleetwoods on Front Street, Nahoku, and other tenants once were. Throughout our remodel process, we continue to navigate uncertainty. These uncertainties have been a huge factor that continue to cause delays, which increase costs and loss opportunities for supplies and contractors, further pushing back completion dates, thus delaying future jobs. We need to rebuild and recreate Lahaina's historic economic engine. Front Street worked well as it supported jobs, progress, stability, and confidence within our community.

An economic engine supporting Lahaina Town and all of Hawaii. We respectfully ask that you support bill one ten as written. Allowing the process to remain as it was will help ensure that the rebuild can move forward efficiently and continue to draw in individuals for years to come. It's really important that we continue to move that process forward. And also very quickly, I'm also testifying in support of Bill one fifty six.

This bill is an important step towards rebuilding Lahaina in a way that honors its historic charm and character. By supporting Bill one fifty six, we can ensure that Lahaina is rebuilt respectfully of its history, community, and identity. And a mahalo for your time and consideration. If you have any questions, specifically on the first one, I'd be more than happy to address any of those.

Okay. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Palton?

Thank you, Mr. Coach. Thank you for your testimony. I just wanted to clarify that part in, your testimony for bill one ten when you said rebuild as it was, if you could clarify.

Oh, it's it's important to rebuild back Lahaina as it as it, was. I think what all of the building owners, are asking for is to is to not expand on what different than what they had before. So I'm speaking for 744. Our building is still standing. So we are treating that as a remodel.

So we are putting back our facade, putting back everything else. As as we come back, our neighbors are gonna build back what was there before. Not going up, going down, but, rebuilding and and having, a similar look and feel of of what was there.

So without this bill, you couldn't rebuild it as it was?

Depending on, of of forcing them to work with different street widths and everything else and having to deal with that puts undue stress on each landowner to be able to have to deal with that. Keeping as it is allows for a smoother construction period of time to move forward with that process.

Thank you.

Thank you. Member Sugimaran clarifying questions.

It's so important to hear your, perspective because as you know, the county has rightfully so been focusing on residents and rebuild of the residents. But to me, the commercial properties which you represent a big part of have been forgotten until recently. So we wanna keep on hearing from you or I do as to what your needs are. So you're saying that to pass this bill, especially bill one ten, will be instrumental in you being able to do what? Because it's such a huge process.

Everything that we can do to help bring back the economic engine of Lahaina will help support all the things that you have all done for the last two years to get the residential community back up and going. Wow. Every everything and and so this is this is not done in piecemeal. So everybody that has a home needs to have a job to help support that process. People need jobs.

People need other thing else. Hawaii lost 25% of its economic engine when Lahaina went down. By focusing on residential, which was extremely important process after the fire, was a good thing. Should we have been focusing on everything at once? Probably.

But we can't go back two years. Now we need to get the commercial business back to help those that have their homes back to be able to have their jobs back. But we need to be able to piece back 25% of our hour, and now we're in total of Hawaii, our income back into the state as well as Lahaina. Maintaining all those people that have homes so that they can keep their homes, keep their jobs, raise their families, and everything else. That's the most important part of rebuilding a town, rebuilding a future, trying to rebuild a history of what made Lahaina so special.

I hear you. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll hold for a minute. Welcome, Member Johnson. Do you have any clarifying questions for the testifier?

No, I don't, chair. Thanks for recognizing me. I'm alone in my, workspace, and I'm here and ready to work. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Thanks. Thank you very much for your testimony, sir. Thank you.

Stop. Thank you, chair. Apologies to clarify. We're only taking testimony on bill 110 at this time. Yeah. So, the next individual signed up is Warren Freeland, to be followed by Theo Morrison.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Warren Freeland. I am here today representing my family, who are the fee simple owners of the Pioneer Inn property. I'm also with Front Street Recovery. My great grandfather opened the Pioneer Inn for business in nineteen o one, and the property has remained in my family ever since.

We have been involved in the community for generations. Free Fire Lahaina was a unique special community that we loved very much. Able to sure we're with any business, uncertainty can be one of the biggest hurdles in the planning process. For many Front Street property owners, the issues addressed by Bill 110 were a complete roadblock. Passing Bill 110 will clarify this important element to the planning and rebuild process of the historic Front Street business corridor. Thank you for your time, consideration, and support for Lionel.

Thank you, sir. Members, any clarifying questions for the testifier? Member Johnson? Thank you for your testimony, sir.

Thank you. Staff? Thank you, chair. The next testifier is Theo Morrison, to be followed by Jonathan Hilton on Teams.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Theo Morris and I'm the executive director of Lahaina Restoration Foundation. We're a 63 year old nonprofit. And we are a property owner on Front Street. So I'm here today to support very enthusiastically support bill one ten bill one ten.

And I'll come back for the other one. Yeah. Just just to point out, and if you're familiar with that beautiful cut stone wall in front of the Baldwin home, if bill one ten did not go through, we would probably lose that wall. And that would be a huge historic fight, I doubt you'd win it. But I'm just pointing that out. That's one of the casualties of trying to widen the road. So I've been I've lived and worked in Lahaina for thirty five years. Most of the jobs I had were right there on Front Street. And so I've over that course of that time, I've walked Front Street. I always walked to the bank.

I walked to the post office. That's what you do in Lahaina. I'm very, very familiar with Front Street and how it works. And that's the key element. That street works. It totally works. There's not a single stop stop sign between Pua Mana and what was the Chart house. And it's amazing how well that street works.

I'm

I I also was involved with the Front Street Improvement project project in 1997. And I also wrote the nomination for the 2011 Great Streets Award put out by the American Planning Association. French Street was one of the winners that year and it was the first street in Hawaii to ever win the Great Streets Award. And that's what that street is. It is a great street that works. So, we're very thrilled to support not widening front street. Thank you.

Member Sugimura, clarifying question.

Thank you. Just want to say thank you. Probably the reason why Lahaina is so great is that people like you that love the town and live it. You for everything you've done.

You're welcome. I want to wait. I

chair. I'm at home in my private residence alone.

Okay. Member Johnson, any clarifying questions? Okay. No, I don't. Okay. And anybody else clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony.

You're welcome. Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Jonathan Hilton on Teams, to be followed by McKinley Eads.

Good afternoon, committee. I'm Jonathan Helton. I am a researcher with the Grassroots Institute of Hawaii. For full disclosure, I am a registered lobbyist. The Grassroots Institute of Hawaii supports Bill 110.

I think there's a couple of reasons for that, but I think the biggest reason relates to certainty. So up until the Office of Recovery issued the street rebuilding memo in late September, folks who were trying to get in their permits for commercial or multifamily or anything that is essentially larger than a single family home were being told by the Department of Public Works that they would have to make room for a 60 foot wide street. And obviously that or a 60 foot wide right of way. Obviously that's going to be a problem for anyone who's looking to rebuild back on the same footprint that they had in Lahaina. So what passing Bill 110 would do, it would give certainty to anybody who is looking to put in a commercial permit or a multifamily permit, or anyone who is currently in that process but is hung up.

So Grassroots would support the CD1. We think the current draft of the bill is better since it applies to any property that was destroyed in the fires. We think that sort of gives that puts everybody who lost something on an equal playing field, and it is fair to everyone who is affected. And I'll just say this, that I know the Office of Recovery mentioned in their September memo that they plan on releasing additional guidance in the future for some of these streets that that memo did not cover. That would certainly be great.

It would provide certainty. But in addition to providing certainty, advancing Bill Montana out of committee now would also provide some speed so that folks who are asking the question, hey, should I rebuild? Should I sell the land? What am I going to do? They will be able to know that there is a standard going forward that they will not be required to make street and other sort of improvements when they submit permit and start the rebuilding process. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can. I encourage your full support. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Staff?

Sure. The next testifier is McKinley Eats, to be followed by Ryan Churchill. And McKinley is unmuted on our end. Oh, I see her online now.

Hello. My name is McKinley Eads and I'm the project manager for Freedman Investment Group Mariners, the owners of 838 Front Street, which was completely destroyed by the fires. I'm testifying in strong support of Bill 110. The devastation in Lahaina has left property owners facing unprecedented challenges, requiring owners to undertake improvements such as pavement widening, sidewalk construction, curbs, drainage, signage, or utility relocation as a condition of simply rebuilding is not only grossly unfair and unjust, but entirely impractical. These requirements create unnecessary and costly barriers at a time when many of us are already overwhelmed by the logistical, financial, and emotional toll of rebuilding.

It is also important to consider that Maui County has received $1,600,000,000 in federal community development block grant disaster recovery funds, the largest award to a single municipality to date, including $400,000,000 specifically designated for infrastructure and public facilities. These public funds were allocated to support the community recovery, not to shift the burden onto individual property owners who are struggling to restore what they lost. Bill 110 wisely recognizes the inefficiencies of piecemeal public infrastructure improvements and provides much needed clarity and certainty. By exempting these disaster impacted properties from street improvement requirements, this bill creates a fair and practical path forward for rebuilding. I respectfully urge you to pass this bill to ensure a fair, workable path towards our community recovery.

Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing none, thank you very much.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Ryan Churchill, to be followed by the Royal House of Hawaii.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Ryan Churchill with Pacific Rim Land. We are co owners of the property at 612 Front Street. We support Bill 110, which provides exemptions to Maui County Code 16.25.201 for properties being rebuilt along Front Street. I would like to reiterate what Theo said.

Front Street works. In 2011, Front Street was awarded as a Great Streets of America by the American Planning Association. Front Street worked for many, many decades. It does not need to be widened to be a major road as it will lose its charm and historical character. If there are any desire to upgrade to Front Street, it should be administered by the county and officer recovery, not dozens of individual property owners making piecemeal improvements at different points in time along their frontage.

What a mess that would be. In addition, this bill is consistent with recent office recovery, directive number two dated 09/28/2025, which states no additional right of way dedication is required ensuring preservation of the historical streetscape while supporting economic recovery. This bill will help codify what is now in practice and provide owners certainty. Mahalo

for

your support and encourage passing of Bill 110.

Thank you for your testimony. Members, any clarifying questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you very much. Next testifier.

Chair, the next testifier is the Royal House of Hawaii to be followed by Jeff Wayoka.

Aloha. This is the Royal House of Hawaii, a member of the royal house of Hawaii and heir and royal patent, Aloyo land tenant under Hewa Hewa, Helu three two three seven. And there has, I fully object, period, point blank, because, I do not there you guys are not landowners, number one, because, you guys are leasehold grand tours. Yeah. Because the royal patents own the land forever, just like the land over there, the king's land.

Yeah. My grandpa. You guys over there, it's prodding all these lands in front of our faces. Yeah? There's no discussion with the beneficiary beneficiaries and the heirs and the descendants of the specific lands talked about. You guys is erasing the legal info on top of everybody's TMK. You need to put the royal patent, the real property, the LCA land commission award that was made in eighteen hundreds already adjudicated. There's you guys have no clear title to be a landowner because the royal patent's real property own them forever. Made by Kamehameha the third. Kaui Kiau Ouli, make it known.

And there's no discussion with any of us. Where where is our discussion? Like, it doesn't make it really doesn't add up and make sense. Why are you guys calling your guys an owner? You guys are a leasehold grantor. The land belongs and belongs and or it belongs to the royal patent descendants and heirs forever, and it it doesn't add up. This is all frauded. Why I fully object to this and any other development no matter what. All the every single development. I'm an Alodio land tenant.

I haven't got contacted in any of these decisions. Article one, section one, who the people, I the people can make and can help make decisions. Right? We we Alodia land tenants, Royal Patent tenants, and there was no contact whatsoever, and the land belongs to the descendants of the Royal Patent, period, point blank, because they do factually own it forever. It's a lil a lil'o title.

Do I have to keep on repeating myself? And, we are we're not gonna obviously evict the people that was living over there, number one, because, hello. Like, they was all raised Obrea, if anything, but, yeah, you guys need to, call up and contact the descendants of the royal patrons, a laurel title made by Kamehameha the third. And, yeah. And and that's all I gotta say because that's by right by law, you guys never even contact us. We gotta be contacted. And, yeah. Thank you, Eros.

Thank you for your testimony. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing none.

Staff? Next thus far. Chair, the last individual signed up to testify is Jeff Uioca.

Thank you, Chair, members. I just wanted to stand in support of bill one ten and thank, mister Smith from the office of recovery, mayor Bisson, councilmember Cook, and his staff for helping us push this forward. It'll certainly oh, sorry. I work for a front street recovery. I represent them as, helping them out through some things. And just wanted to thank you guys. It gives certain levels of certainty to all the business owners trying to rebuild by, having this we're able

do to And And

was just wondering, since you're with, Front Street Recovery, is there a list of other things that we should be doing to make the recovery faster or the the blocks then would be removed?

I don't think that's on the agenda.

He brought it up.

I'll I'll reach out to you offline, councilmember. There there are certain things that could help. I'm probably not super prepared to discuss it today, though,

so I thank will call you. Or you can call me.

Members, any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Sure. That's all the individuals signed up to testify. If there's anyone in the audience or on Teams that would like to testify, please come up to the mic and begin your testimony. Use the raise your hand function on Teams and staff will unmute you. Here's a brief countdown. Oh, I do see a Christine Camp who would like to testify on Teams.

Good afternoon. Christine Camp. McKinley already spoke on behalf of the owner for 838 Front Street. I'd like to speak on behalf of the 11 small business tenants who have asked me to speak on their behalf. These businesses would like to come back to Front Street. The bill as proposed is very helpful. We're grateful for your efforts. We'd like to build as soon as possible to bring them back. Some of them could not afford to stay on Maui, and they're now temporarily, they tell me, living in other states while making a living. But they'd like to come back to Maui.

Front Street works just the way it was. It was a charming little town, and it was a a center of commerce for a lot of these businesses for them, their employees, and their families. So we we ask for your support. Council member Sugimura, as it relates to what could you do to make this faster from an owner's perspective and as well as the tenant's perspective. Some of the tenants had specialized licenses for Department of Health or for liquor licenses.

If they could have a one stop shop so so that they can, you know, start earlier, that would be really great. So thinking ahead, right, one is to build. The second is for those tenants to just regroup and get their permits. And I can tell you that, in our twenty five years of owning this property, we've had two tenants go out of business waiting for permits. It is that difficult when you're in a historic district.

So if you could look forward to when those tenants do finally come back, those businesses when they do come back, if you can think about a one stop shop that the county can propose, that would be really helpful. The second thing is, of course, it's not something that a county can do anything about, but I'm very encouraged by the memorandum of understanding that the county is working with the state historic preservation district. And I think it's important that you work through the processes as efficiently as possible so that not every little 10,000 square foot parcel and our parcel is 14,000 square feet has to do a full on archaeological survey for the entire lot. It should be done as the entire district, and that county should have an office that can process it instead of everything going to the state of Hawaii. And my my hope is that you can do that through the local channels with local archaeologists.

So I understand that that is already moving through through, and I hope that that moves forward. So thank you, council members, for looking ahead. Thank you for this bill. I think the the really number one important message is that Front Street worked the way it was, and we hope that you can keep it the way it is when we rebuild. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, clarifying questions. I see Member Palton and then Member Senecze.

When you said that you're speaking on behalf of the small business owners, some of which had to relocate, have they been given any assurances that they would be, like, right of first refusal or allowed to come back?

The Well, all depends on how much it's gonna cost for us to build. You know, for our particular situation, we were insured for $8,000,000, and our new proposal to build without archaeological work so far is $23,000,000. So I'm not sure that, you know, we're able to keep the lease rents the way it was, but we'd like to. And, you know, the speedier we can move forward, the easier it is for us to work with those tenants and see if we can try to find a pathway for them. So for us, you know, we're able to do that. I'm not sure if every property owner can.

So no guarantees that the original tenants could return it depends on what the lease price is and what they can afford.

Absolutely. I mean, you know, if if if the owners can afford to keep the lease rates the way they are. But, you know, if you can make it easier, right, if you can reduce the property taxes, you can help with the insurance, you can allow their buildings to be faster. I mean, it's all about efficiency and certainty. It translates down to rent for them.

Thank you.

Thank you. Member Sugimura, questions, clarifying questions?

Member Senensi had

I apologize. Member Senensi.

Mahalo, Chair. And mahalo for your testimony. I I guess and and I agree the process of rebuilding Lahaina and and I'll probably ask this of director Smith too. I I just had concerns about safety and maybe, you know, for since the fires. I know we want to build back but I'm supportive of build back safer.

And so I don't know if the small the small business owners Will know will therapy more fire retarded materials for firewalls in the rebuild and and I know front street. Emergency access and evacuation was an important. Piece that the new department is also working on. Has there been some of these discussions with the small business owners about building back safer?

I think that's a very good question, councilmember. And we've been told that we have to meet the current codes, which means sprinklers. You know, as far as fire retardation, I don't think I'll be building a wood structure, but wood looking like structure, right? So like Hardie siding, for example, which is a cementitious board. And then we're very much supportive of that escape route in the back. What is that street that you're know, we would love for you to start acquiring property so you could have that access road right behind Front Street, right? So it's parallel to it. I can't remember the name of the proposed street.

Okay. Alright. Thank you for that. Thank you, Chair.

Members, any okay. Member Sigamura? Yeah.

Thank you. I'm very interested in your statement that to take the 14,000 square feet correct me if I'm wrong, but to have it reviewed by ShipD all at once versus individual parcels? I'm not sure. Can you explain that, what you said?

Sorry. I misstated. So, you know, if you were to do a, historic preservation review of one particular parcel, say 14,000 square foot, you have to hire an archaeologist. You have to hire a cultural consultant. You have to put together a report, the initial phase report. Then you have to do test pits. Then you have to go back and report back, and you wait. And each one, you're waiting. Now remember, there's one archaeologist for Island Of Maui I think was sharing with Oahu and Kauai because, you know, they have a shortage of all these specialists at the state of Hawaii. You know, it could take months, could take a year.

Plus, when you add up all of those costs for that one particular property, that could be $250,000 easily. So my thinking is that, you know, it should be done in a more holistic way for the whole area that allows for faster adjudication of the properties without having to have each property owner hire all these consultants. It's not to say you're skipping a step. It's to go through it but more expeditiously. And if you can do it locally, that would be much faster. That's the hope, right, because they're more familiar with the area. Thank you. Maybe I'll ask

the Office of Recovery if they have a thought on that. That's an interesting thought. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff, do we have additional testifiers?

Sure. The last individual signed up to testify is Jay Miyake. Jay, you're currently unmuted on our end. If you're able to enable your microphone and camera, then you can proceed with your testimony. The Okay.

So, Chair, at this time, there's no other individual signed up to testify. I can do a last call if you'd like. Oh, I do hear Chase.

Sorry. I'm online. Sorry. I'm online. You're welcome.

Sorry about the delay. Our family owns 764 French Street, and we support Bill 110. And we're currently developing plans to replace as much as possible what we had. And our replacement, of course, will follow all of current standard building codes. And then we're also working with Shift B to meet their requirements, but and I understand that they've streamlined some of their process.

And if they can streamline the process even more, that would be even better. Any questions?

Thank you, sir. Members, any clarifying questions for to to other.

And,

that.

Team. Do

to And And And make sure sure team.

To

And not going questions. Questions.

I wanna go back to to the discussion about Ship D. And if there's a way, Office of Recovery, that this can be done, you know, the testifiers are speaking or if there's a way that it could be more efficient, I guess.

I

think these bills are pretty narrow and so I would just caution the body about, what's on the agenda because I don't really think in an expansive discussion about how to make this more streamlined is really, on the agenda. So I just caution.

Thank you. Thank you,

Thank you, Everest Sugimara.

Then regarding this bill, it has been proposed by the Office of Recovery. And would you like to make a general statement taking into consideration what some of the testifiers have said? Because they did did bring up the things I'm talking about, but it is too broad. I will take it up. John.

Chair and councilmember, thank you very much. Yeah. I think in terms of talking about the shifty stuff, maybe we can come back and help with that, another time, if that's okay, chair. I'd be happy to do so. In terms of this bill, we we simply support it. It's in line with a couple testifiers have mentioned, some of the recovery memos that we've sent out, and this this bill is right in line with that. So we just support the bill because it falls right in line with what the Office of Recovery is doing on Front Street in particular. Thank you.

Thank you. You.

Thank you. Member of Halton, questions for resource?

Thank you, chair. Thank you, mister Smith. I was on a plane on September 30, I was unable to attend the open house on the front street, or the commercial areas. And, I was wondering if the turnout on that is in alignment with the at least bill one ten for right now and, like, what the attendance was and sentiment and if if that was a precursor to this bill one ten moving forward or was this already in the works?

Sure. Thank you for that question. Yeah. Going we're to ir

sense

continue to hear loud and clear, we hear it today is everybody likes Front Street. We get that. We support that. There are some safety issues and there are some other things that we're working on that are outside of this bill. But in general, this particular bill is very much in line with the Rebuild Lahaina work and plan. We don't need to widen Front Street in order to make it work well.

One of the other big complaints prior to August 2023 was the aggressive cosmetic sales. And if folks aren't, I guess, redoing the sidewalks, does the ownership still stand on that? Like, how some of the parcels went out into the the right public right of ways?

Sir?

So I I think enforcement of that type of an issue would be separate from this particular, code change.

So including ownership? Because in this area, nobody's required to improve to current code standards. So the ownership that was before August 2023 would continue on?

Other that we're

that seeing of

is lot own. Going able do

to going

way. Is that corporation And counsel that question or administrator?

Yeah. I just don't know that this bill I I think I understand the intent of the question is to talk about, like, the aggressive street vendors.

Is that right? Well, just, you know, I I don't have a problem with not upgrading it to normal, to the code because it is the historic district, and they said it worked. But that was one thing that we were constantly getting complaints about it not working. But, I mean, that's not a infrastructure issue. That's, like, a human behavior issue. But if if the sidewalk is public, to me, it's public, and your property comes out into the public right of way, this bill, there's no way that can address the public areas being public.

Corp. Council? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I think that's a separate matter that we still have to grapple with. But the next bill on the agenda might have a little bit of an impact on that. In fact, Mr. Hubbard and I were talking about that. But I think for this, it's going to remain as is because we are clearly not making anyone do any upgrades or anything. Okay. I'll follow-up on the next bill.

Thank you. Members, any other clarifying questions for or not clarifying any other questions for our resource people? Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry I came in the meeting a little late, but was the Department of Planning in this meeting? Are they invited or no? Okay. Well, I read their letter, and it's number nine on Granicus, and it sounded like they didn't support it. So, I'd like to see Mr. Smith kind of respond. The idea that if this bill passes without amendments, it would delay the implementation of the 2022 West Maui community plan. Has that been considered at all, how that interacts with the West Maui community plan? Just moved.

I have to admit, I have not read that letter from planning. I wasn't aware that it was I can read it real quick, though, if I can get a copy.

It's number nine on Granicus. It just seemed that that was their concern. The other concern and maybe you could respond to this, Mr. Smith was that the do we even know what the total value of deferred improvements would cost?

Mr. Smith?

Thank you for that question. There's not been a study done on Front Street to explain what that would be in terms of cost. I can say that, in terms of the recovery, talked to the mayor about this, talked to managing director about this. And in alignment with the testimony, if there is a public right of way improvement that needs to happen, in town, the CDPG of going able And do that. To to that.

Do some of the infrastructure funds to help offset that cost. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Don't know maybe Ms. Desjardins can respond. I don't know who or maybe, Chair, you would recommend where this question would go, but what effect if we do delay the West Mali community plan? What happens?

Council.

Thank you, Member Johnson. I think the community plan is already in place. So, I'm not I mean, I don't understand the question how do we would be delaying it. If there's a

particular I'm only responding to what the planning department mentioned in their letter number nine on Granicus.

So, Delayed these are just the implementation.

So, I don't know. I think that that would be a different topic that we would probably want to discuss. I'm not so sure that Bill 110 would directly impact that.

Okay. Just, you know, thank you for the response. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Member Rollins Fernandez, do you have any questions?

Mahalo, Chair. No questions.

Member Senensi, any questions?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just follow-up with Mr. Smith about it looks like there are efforts from the department to do emergency evacuation behind French Street. And then, Chair, was you mentioned this was from Shaw Street to Opalawa Street on French Street.

That it?

John?

You for the question. Yes.

Was Baker Tushaw, I believe, in this bill. And to answer your question in terms of emergency access and safety, yes, it is the intention, of the county to pursue an extension of Luikini Street behind this area that would act as an alternate route. That's in the works now, but not part of this bill. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you for that. Thank you, chair.

Okay. Anybody else online that hasn't any further questions? Second round. Member Palton.

I did wanna try and follow-up on what, member Johnson was seeing about the community plan, and it's still in the policies and action items about street improvements and the undergrounding of utilities within West Maui, which were policies two point two point one, two point five point two zero, and action items two point one four and two point one seven. They're saying it's currently exempted for single family homes and exempting all property owners is not in alignment with the community plan. And so because this is in the SMA, is there any, like, usually, when the community planning's in the SMA, it's more of a has to happen. And when it's outside of the SMA, it's a recommendation. So I just was wondering if we're we're not following the community plan in the SMA, and that's okay because we're changing the law?

Or how how does that work?

Mr. Spitt? If it's okay, I'll start, and then I'll ask Mimi to weigh in as well. So just in terms of the planning department letter, maybe why I didn't see it, this was, 08/13/2024,

which So it's was the written old version

of this was written in response to the first version, which I think was a much broader, range. We've narrowed it all the way down to just Front Street. So that's the difference. So I think the comments I haven't actually read I probably did read this letter back in 2024, but, just for clarification because I don't wanna confuse everyone. I think that was a response to because we have been working hand in hand with the planning department.

I understand that part. So it's a smaller piece, but that piece is still in the SMA. So same question, but I understand it's a smaller question.

Right. So in terms of the undergrounding and those sorts what ir able to get a And be court counsel weigh in from a legal standpoint in terms of

Court counsel, comment?

Thank you. Yeah, I was also going to just point that out that it looks like there's been a substantial amendment since the letter. The planning department's comments do point out of course that this encourages the community plan, encourages certain things happen in West Maui. However, like you said, Member Palton, you are enacting a law. So I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say, you have the right to change the law.

And plan, of course, you're not bound by the community plan when you're changing that. But I don't know whether that will involve amendment to the community plan in the future perhaps to align with it. But I agree that the area is so narrow that I think that it's intended to address a very specific issue. And so that should hopefully alleviate some of your concerns about the community plan. And I like to hear that they are still trying to implement some of those safety measures even though it just doesn't involve having to have these folks do improvements in order to effectuate that.

So the policies and action items that encourages, street improvements and undergrounding of utilities can still be the policy and action item. We're just not going to do it in this specific area that was destroyed, but it still applies. Because if we're doing the undergrounding on Luakini Street, that's still one of the action items. And improving the evacuation routes is also street improvements. Thank you. Yeah. I think

that what would probably happen is that once we determine what form of this bill passes, we would then want to make sure with planning that it's still in alignment with the community plan because of course we could also come back with an amendment to the community plan if we felt that there was a deviation from the plan so substantial that it required that type of

an amendment. Okay. Yeah, that sounds good. Please do that.

Thank you. Members, any additional questions? And I want to welcome, member, Oh Hodges back.

Thank you, chair. I'm at my private residence now. I do have, three minors and an adult Makoa'u'uhadians all walking around me. I don't have any questions. I have been listening as best as I could, to the questions, but thank you for acknowledging me. Thanks.

Thank you. Members, any other questions on this particular item? Okay, seeing no further discussion, we'll move on to decision making. Board Directors

of we

have

the We have for the foundation version incorporating the amendments referred to in the ASF's description.

So moved.

Moved by member Sugimura. Seconded by

We need a second.

I need a second. Member Palton. To substitute bill one ten with the proposed CD one version. Members, this ASF replaces the exception for any property where a structure was destroyed or damaged by the 08/08/2023 Maui wildfires with a more limited exemption applying only to the structures on Front Street properties located between Shaw Street and Baker Street and deliver new team. To and

ir And

to

Member Smith I mean, Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Chair. Whether or not those those, properties are developable back is not part of this bill. It's not if that's the question or if that's at the root of the Yes.

I just was concerned. Thanks for leeway, Chair. Thank you.

Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, you have six ayes, zero nos with members Rollins Fernandez, comma, and Lee excused. The motion passes. You're back to the main

motion as amended. Thank you, members. We're now back to the main motion as amended. Any further discussion? Okay. Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Okay, Chair, you have seven ayes, zero nos, with members Lee and Kam excused. Motion passes.

We're

to

make Okay. Members, the last item is Bill we're 156, which relates to private encroachments and to public right away such as awnings, canopies, marquees and signs that extend over the sidewalks. In Lahaina a building build us seeing to a The existing building code does not clearly address replacements a following an emergency or a disaster, nor does it distinguish between minor repairs and full reconstruction. Bill 156 fills that gap by defining a replacement encroachment as a structure located partially or wholly within a public right of way that replaces a legally constructed encroachment destroyed or damaged by emergency or disaster. It would also clarify that these replacements must meet building code standards, maintain adequate clearance and not interfere with public health or safety.

The goal is to support safe and timely restoration of Lahaina's walkable streetscapes while maintaining clear standards for the county's oversight of the public rights of way. Members, I also have a proposed amendment summary form to further clarify the definition of replacement encroachment as replacement overhead encroachment Board of of

of their the we're do to next And seeing to in

get

the

I

things seen of

we're able be other side

going

able to a do own. That. I And

that's

Aloha. Once again, I am Warren Freeland. I represent my family and French Drink Recovery. I just wanted to provide a brief testimony in support of Bill 156. We believe that this bill helps to preserve the timeless character of Lahaina. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing none, thank you, sir. Staff?

Sure. The next individual signed up to testify is Theo Morrison to be followed by Jonathan Hilton.

Aloha. My name is Theo Morrison. I'm the executive director of Lahaina Restoration Foundation, and we're in support of bill one fifty six. It just it's just it's a part of Lahaina, and it sounds like there's just a a a mix up between the historic district guidelines and the code. So Approving 156 would straighten things out and let Lahaina be Lahaina. Thank you.

Thank you, members. Any clarifying questions for our testifier? Member Palton.

Thank you. I just was wondering if you had any knowledge. Somebody had commented on, I posted the amendment summary form about large delivery truck roofs hitting the awnings. Did you have any knowledge of that? Oh, I see another testifier, I guess. Maybe.

No. I don't, but, he does. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. I thought you knew because email everyone.

Members, other clarifying questions for that testifier? Seeing none. Staff next.

Chair Jonathan Hilton did leave the meeting, the next individual signed up to testify is McKinley. It's to be followed by Ryan Churchill.

Hello, chair counsel. I'm once again, testifying on behalf of 838 French Street. We strongly support this bill provides a vital path to restoring the historic architectural features that gave French Street's charm and its pedestrian friendly character. It allows these features to be rebuilt safely and legally into the original scale as long as they meet the current building code standards. I can attest that recovery is already complex.

Without measures like these, we risk losing not only buildings but also the unique identity that defines places like Front Street. These features offered more than aesthetic value. They provided shade, comfort, and a sense of place. Restoring is essential to Lahaina's cultural, historical, and commercial vitality. I respectfully urge you to pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Palton.

Oh, thank you, miss Eads. I just wanted to clarify when you said about current building code standards. So this is already allowed but just not in the historic district or something. Is that why this bill is needed?

From my understanding, it is needed just because there is currently no clear path forward if somebody was trying to rebuild. Like, let's per se let's say a patio or an awning. There's nothing that is dictating their, allowability to encroach on these public right of ways. So from my understanding, we'd have to go through a piecemeal process of each property applying, to essentially encroach on this right away. And then this bill makes it free and simple that everyone who had a previous encroachment is allowed to rebuild that as it was. But if, obviously, if someone had created since the patio years ago that wasn't up to code now, they'd have to update it.

Okay. I see what you're saying. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other clarifying questions for this testifier? Seeing none, thank you very much.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Ryan Churchill, to be followed by James Lawrence.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee again. Ryan Churchill with Pacific Rim Land, representing 612 Front Street. I'm also testifying in support, bill one fifty six. This will allow for replacement of awnings, canopies, signs, similar structures encroaching on Front Street. The bill will allow French Street to be rebuilt with the same charm that existed before the fires. The bill will also allow buildings to be rebuilt consistent with the architectural style book for Lahaina, which encourages awnings over the sidewalk. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify and urge you to pass this bill. Thanks.

Thank you, sir. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing none oh, wait, Member Palton? Mister Churchill? Question for miss miss member Palton?

Thank you. Thank you, mister Churchill. I just wanted to clarify that the version of bill one fifty six that you're in part of is the amendment amended one, that, replaces the term replacement encroachment with replacement overhead encroachment and clarifies that the definition applies only to structure located partly or wholly over a public right of way, including an awning cabinetry, marquee, or sign, or was it the original version?

Amend it with overhead, like you stated. Okay. Thank you. It's the overhead encroachment. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you, sir.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is James Lawrence to be followed by Jeff Uioca.

Aloha, Luna O'Molo Cook. I thought he just said that's me. If you looked on a court document, that's what said Commonwealth of Virginia versus James Lawrence. I thank you for taking this important matter into your committee, mister Cook. I also wanted to thank the royal house of Hawaii for their diligence and on onipa'a for Liliokalani's ohana.

And, last week, mister Cook, you asked me, what am I doing here? I'm gonna get you the file one of these days. I got are you in a good mood or not? Because okay. So I'm glad that councilor Palton clarified that because the reason I got here was because of a bench that was on the sidewalk. So I didn't see too many benches in Lahaina, but I think there was at least one over by the short the rock wall that miss Morrison was talking about. So okay. So if I start talking about benches, es, you're you're gonna gonna tell me relevance, right? Are you, like, open minded today or what?

Basically, it's this particular bill, which is encroachments into the right of way from the buildings being reconstructed.

Alright. You cut through me there because you didn't do a beginning of the meeting public testimony. You kinda broke it up, but I follow. Okay. So let me make this more specific to the awnings. Up in Waukawa Town, there's not that many there ain't that many sidewalks. This is kinda like a sideline here, so I'm glad you guys are clarifying this for later when we start growing. This is sorry to interrupt you. This is specifically for Front Street in Lahaina. I was just comparing it to the awnings up in Kula.

But it doesn't have any comparison. Did it's basically reconstructing Front Street.

Okay. I was just I don't go out there that much, so I don't know. I don't I don't know that much. But I used to be a handyman downtown Fredericksburg before they ran me out of town. But I did clean a couple awnings, so I kinda know what you're talking about. I'm in favor of awnings because of the shade factor on that. It's all all hot all the time in Lahaina. So my my main point is that some of the stuff like like the Royal House of Hawaii person was saying they might own the building. They don't own the land of the building, so they don't especially own the sidewalks. I think mister Molina could probably clarify that.

So I just wanna make clear to maybe you can put in the bill or whatever or the maybe the police department, I hope they're watching, that they don't own the the when you're standing underneath the awning in the shade in front of somebody's store, they can't call the police on you for trespassing. You're on a public right away. So that was my main point. And, yeah, I never did like those narrow sidewalks in line, and so I'm kinda stuck in the middle on that one.

Yeah. You please I tried, bro. Okay.

Thank you. Thanks, man. Any clarifying questions for county, and I saved the rest of my time for the Hawaiians.

Any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing none.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Jeff Uyoka, to be followed by Kai Nishiki on Teams.

Oh, thank you, Chair, members. Support, Bill 156. Just wanted again to thank all of you for bringing this forward. It will help with the rebuild. As was mentioned previously, little bit of inconsistency between the historic standards and what's allowed as an encroachment over a public right away. I wanna thank director Molina specifically. Reached out to him with this issue, and he jumped on it to help us pretty quickly in, you know, your office and officer recovery and the administration. So thank you very much.

Thank you, members. Any clarifying questions for the testifier? Seeing none. Thank you.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Kai Nishiki, to be followed by Jay Miyake.

Hello, Chair. Committee members. I am glad to hear that the word overhead was put into the changes because I would definitely have an issue if we're just going to be allowing encroachments on the public right of way for for actual structures. I will say that I did participate online in making the comments about about Front Street. And so it kind of feels like this may or may not have not fully taken into consideration all of the comments.

I will say that one of my comments was that we need to be really that we should really be looking at when we're rebuilding Lahaina, that we're not just encouraging commercial creep into public spaces and you know there's lots of talk about putting like tables and chairs and benches and and and things like that but then you know a lot of businesses will then kind of. And I like cockroach that space in front of their in front of their businesses that actually belong to the public. So I think that that is definitely a concern and with the awnings. Hey, we need trees and Lahaina. That is excuse me chair.

We need to add more of a natural environment back to Lahaina town. So I'm concerned that the overhead replacements of all of these awnings may, You know, the businesses are probably going to say they don't want trees. They want to have their awnings. I just think that, you know, there's going to be some conflict in regards to that. I do see number five that they may have to modify or remove their replacement encroachment if there was improvements made.

So I would just like to give more preference and more priority for trees rather than awnings because trees actually support our community's goal of having shady tree lined avenues and also for our environment, more trees is just better. So a little bit of a concern in thinking that we're just going to have all of these awnings, which just is more built and more commercial environment. That we really should not just be building Lahaina back the way it was. We really need to be thinking about resiliency. And Really, the whole town should be shift shifted Malka outside of the sea level rise exposure area.

The seawall is absolutely going to fail and all of this investment into these businesses is being encouraged in an area that is a coastal hazard area. It's quite disappointing to see folks wanting to just build right back in the coastal hazard area. It's going able that. That. To

We're

testifier? Seeing none, thank you.

Stop. Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Jay Miyake, to be followed by the Royal House of Hawaii.

Hello, sir. Can you unmute?

Jay, we see you online. We see your camera on. You would just have to unmute yourself. Sure. I'm not sure if he's moment, but Jay, you would have to go to the top right hand corner of your screen and find the microphone option.

And then, yep. Thank you very much. I appreciate that help. Again, my family owns 764 French Street. 764 French Street is located right across the wall, and we support this bill.

Thank you. Do you have further testimony? No. Thank you, sir. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing none, thank you very much, sir.

Thank you. Chair, the last individual signed up to testify is the Royal House of Hawaii.

Aloha. This is the Royal House of Hawaii, and, this is all highly invalid, highly illegal, and highly prodded. You guys still haven't contacted us, the descendants of the royal patrons. And as you heard, Jamie earlier, Mahalo Brata, Jamie. It's you guys do not own the the land.

Okay? You guys only own the building. And if the heirs decided to kick any of you guys off, they can very much legally. And this is very highly illegal, very much fraud, very much gentrification because, like, how are you guys saying that you guys like Lahaina, stay Lahaina when you guys keep on making laws, changing them, all of that, making all these changes to rules? Yeah.

But they cannot change the rules with their royal patents, alodial titles because they supersedes all of that anyway. And it's the original meets and bounds of this country, and it can never be changed. And the royal patents are titles to those meets and bounds as you guys should know. And if and if you guys never know that, all of that, what I just said, you guys don't have no qualification in that chair, period. Point blank because, you guys is committing genocide to my papa's kingdom. My papa's land stay over there. You guys know. Right? And it is highly illegal, and that's my greatest concern. You guys like Lahaina to keep be Lahaina.

Return the royal patent to the return return the land to the royal heirs and descendants, period. Point blank. You guys is highly committing crime on an international level. Okay? So do what is right. Do what is right by law. If you guys, like, keep Lahaina Lahaina, yeah, return the lands to the royal patron and the descendants of those lands. All those lands. No matter I don't care if you've been business owner. I don't care if you've this and that. Girl, be the royal house of Hawaii. You guys fucking you guys pushing us to the side. We don't even have no say in not to it. Yeah. So try contact us because you guys supposed to be doing that by right by law, period.

Point blank. We never get no contact. This is highly illegal. Highly. Contact the descendants of the royal patents and the descendants of those royal patents, Alodio, which is the Alodio titles. And if you guys don't know what that is, you guys do not have no qualification in that chair. Point blank period. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? Seeing Yeah. Please have qualify clarifying questions, please. Mahalo.

But I need to have answers. I never get no answers.

Thank you. Seeing no clarifying questions from the members, staff.

Sure. That's all the individuals signed up to testify. If there's anyone in the audience or on Teams that would like to testify, please come up to the mic and begin your testimony or use the raise your hand function on Teams and staff will unmute you. We have one more.

Oh, okay.

Sorry about that. I jumped the gun when I was first up here. Leo Coach

Excuse me, chair. I believe mister Coach has already had an opportunity to testify on both items. Although he testified at the incorrect time, he did testify on both bills.

Member Paul then?

Could I request mister Coach be a resource to this committee, because of his, knowledge about, delivery trucks and their collision with awnings?

Members, any op any Okay. Everybody's in agreement. Hosts.

You willing sticklerfer.

Are you available to be a resource person for the next few minutes?

I am a sticklerfer. Does that

satisfy our need? Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you very much.

I am in support of, the bill, by the way. But, yes, the awning in question was, Excuse

me, chair. I apologize, mister Coach. So if he's being made a resource person, then, once we close public testimony, the members will be able to question him during deliberations.

Okay. I think there wasn't any, but, I'll allow for the last call for public or the chair can allow for the last call.

Is there anybody in opposition to closing testimony and having this be, our resource person be the final comment? Please proceed.

All good?

Think that's good had been point. Run into many, many, many times. And that was due to the fact of a sidewalk cutout that we were kind of forced to do from a from a county perspective during our rebuilding of the project when we took over the building for delivery trucks. Delivery trucks could only come at six a. M.

In the morning or whatever down front street at that time. And so they they did a cutout of of the sidewalk where the trucks came in. At that time, we had our metal roof awnings that would come over. And every once in a while, the FedEx or the, the delivery trucks would get too close and run right into our awnings. I'm all in support of all the awnings covering over the sidewalk.

I did have a conversation with the folks at the Cannery Mall of saying and beautifying and extending the wonderful sidewalks. My hope was to extend the sidewalk in front of 744 because there was, like, a three foot drop off. And and visitors would be going along, paying attention, and fall right off the the the cliff and break their ankles right off there. But a beautiful sidewalk with a wonderful awning, on Front Street is is a is a wonderful thing. And, no trees, please, because twenty years down the road, roots and leaves are not a good thing for sidewalks.

But if you have any questions, that I can help you with but, yeah, we lost about three or four awnings.

Is there any way Like, would the awnings need to be higher, or what would prevent that from happening?

So So we ran into We couldn't raise the awnings or lower awnings because of the CRC. So we ran into the coastal resources commission, and so we were in a pickle. We couldn't do we couldn't we we we were stuck. So we had and so then we were with how far we could come out. So we were right at the point.

We didn't think they would be hit, but every once in a while, you've got a driver that and depending on the size of the truck, you know, they clipped off the edge. And so then you have to replace the whole metal awning, when it when it would go. Now that's not gonna affect a lot of the, the buildings on Front Street. Just the way the configuration of the buildings are. You're talking

And there was no public safety issue when the truck would hit the awning. Like, nobody was in danger.

No. This was usually early in the morning with early delivery, so you would be talking early just See. Yeah. People walking on the sidewalk. I mean, morning folks. Usually, businesses won't open till nine, ten, and 10AM. Okay.

And your awning is the only awning that you know of that had this issue, or were there more

We were metal. A lot of them would be roll out roll out canvas that would come that would come out and cover the streets. That that would be single story buildings. As you get further down, heading down towards Long East direction, as you're going down that way. And then a lot of them didn't have awnings.

Once you got past, the other buildings that would block it, you wouldn't have, too many awnings. But it was, especially, mount good direction. The you get the direct sun coming coming in. That's where you do it. We happen to have metal, and we chose metal for our buildings.

Two story buildings, And then where you had the the old blue max or the the pizza place was would be all wood. Do you have the balconies be historically correct? Depending on height limits and where the trucks come in, you would have that. So awnings, it builds character. The awnings, I mean, that's Lahaina.

You just have to create sidewalks, and that's where the the big discussion of the cannery is how do you create character with sidewalks and and, cooling without having, you know, big, huge puffy trees or palm trees, which don't belong there. You know, you create little bonsai trees or or or some kind of stuff. Thank you. Any other questions? That answer

It answers my question. I see member Johnson had a

question. Member Johnson, your hand's up.

Thank you, chair. Okay. You said something that I gotta ask. Why do you think trees don't belong there? I that's the part I mean, you know, that you know, you've heard the expression Lahaina noon. Right? I mean, trees bring shade. There's a big push to have shade trees, especially, you know I mean, we can look at Honolulu with the amount of arborists they employ. Why do you think trees don't belong on trees?

I don't think certain kind of trees do not belong. We so we had we had two beautiful trees in it. So 744 Front Street, a two story building plus the rooftop plus Kukui Lane. So we had two kiosks in Kukui Lane, which we had two wonderful trees to provide shade, to provide an area for people to sit. We had the only the only egress coming from Luikini through Kukui Lane to Front Street with two wonderful trees.

Well, those two nice, beautiful trees turn into huge things. Roots start breaking the the the area of confinement. They start breaking pipes. You fast forward of what these trees are gonna look like. Unless you're gonna have bonsai trees, or or something that creates, maintenance, that are easily maintained over time.

If you fast forward twenty years, especially for two story buildings, You don't want to block the economic viability of of the idea. Of Front Street. So take for instance, 744. I'll speak specifically under 744 where Fleetwoods was. If you're gonna plant trees in front of Fleetwoods, at some point, that tree is gonna cover up the whole view. People come there to look at the harbor, to watch the boats coming out, to see the sunset. Why would you have a tree blocking that whole view or go to the pizza place and not being able to see anything about Lahaina except for a tree?

Okay. Member Johnson, does that answer your question?

I you know, we can get in a debate of it. I'm not here to debate you, but I I definitely don't agree that the I mean, we can plant smart, and maintenance is part of all of this. Tree tunnels are beautiful. The view I've heard that well, I don't want to debate you, but I hear your thanks for responding. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions for our resource people person? John? Okay.

Thank you, chair. I just a quick comment on not to talk about trees, but maybe just to get back to the awning. Recovery loves trees. We're figuring out how to make trees work in this town so that they work for both the commercial and public. But on the awning side, it's a really good example of how we're getting input in these public forums.

When we go to the Cannery Mall, we have these things where we know very specifically what this issue is. There's a fairly simple thing we can do in the sidewalk to help fix this issue so that the canopy works, so that the trees will work eventually, and the sidewalk works. So this is it's it sounds like a problem, but this is a unique situation that we know about and we know how to fix already, and we're gonna work together to make sure that that happens. So I just don't wanna sidetrack what we're this particular this is a good bill.

This is a good thing. Yeah.

You. Yeah. I'm all for it. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you for your participation. Staff, is there anyone else wishing to testify? Chair, you already closed public testimony. You're already in deliberations. Okay. Members we already did that. As a remember as a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted into the record. Members, I'm proposing to Okay, I already did that, too. Seeing no further discussion, we'll move on to decision making. Now the chair would like to entertain a motion to recommend passage of the

I did have we didn't do the two rounds of questions yet.

Thought we did a lot of talking. My apology. Okay. So we're rewind to members, I'm proposing two rounds of three minutes questions per member. Are there any objections? No objections. No objections. Thank you. We'll start with vice chair Sugimara.

No questions. I support this.

Okay. Councilmember Johnson?

Oh, what about

I'm sorry. I'm going on my list. I'll be right with you. That was it for me? Yes.

Okay. I'd like to follow-up, Mr. Smith. If you could explain what you said you have a proposal to balance out trees as well as the awnings altogether. There's a didn't if you could just explain a little bit of that detail.

Get able what in planning effort very much is focused on where are the right trees supposed to be, where do they fit well in the public right of way across the board. So that is a huge part of the work that we're doing with the Rebuild Lahaina plan. So I just want to make that clear. We come up to very specific instances where maybe Front Street didn't work exactly the way we want because all these rules make people do things sort of in a funky way. We're jumping into those specific instances, and we're gonna do things like move the sidewalk a little bit, bump it out just so that the delivery truck doesn't run into this awning in the future.

That that's the kind of thing that we're working on. I mean, we're at that granular level of detail for all of these owners from one end of front street to the other. So I just there is this comprehensive effort that's underway through the rebuild behind the plan, and I just and that's why I'm here. I just want you folks to understand that that work is going on. And so we think that the way that this bill is working is not going to be in conflict because we can work through these issues on the ground.

Right. I really appreciate that. You can just feel I mentioned a lot, and I knew you could feel how much hotter it has become. When we talk about the rebuild, the concrete is such a heat absorber. I think that the trees will help make it not so hot.

I think the way we build our pavements in a way that accommodates the trees and the awnings and the maintenance of both, you know? I think it's a yes and. Like, yes, we can do both things and make it beautiful and build back, you know, smart. The post fire, everyone wanted to talk about the Banyan Tree. I mean, trees are a part of, you know, community. They really do bring people together, the banyan tree being one of the most famous ones. But I'm glad that the department is considering all things on the table to build back in a better way. So thanks for that response. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Now, Member Palton?

My question is about the awnings being able to come back if they were legally constructed originally. Is this, similar to I think it was bill one zero five the other year, where the applicant or whomever had to prove that their thing was legally constructed prior to the fire? Or how will that be determined?

Is director Molina on?

Yeah. I don't wanna speak for director Molina on this one. If he if he's still on.

Because pictures would say if There he is.

Welcome, director Molina. If it was legally Did you hear the member Palton's question?

If you don't mind repeating the question.

Sure. I think the bill had said that, buildings that had previously to the fire had a legally constructed awning would be able to replace it. How are we determining who had a legally constructed awning prior to the fire? Probably

relying on the applicant on what they propose, and then we do have street view data from our systems that we would reference. Those rebuilds are going to be constrained to the parameters in the proposed bill in front of you as well as, there's requirements on awnings in the building code as well.

So, the criteria is kind of, photo documentation because, I guess, in bill one zero five, a lot of people had stuff that may not have been legally constructed. You know, sometimes you go by the wharf and you'd see a sandwich sign on the ground, and I'm not sure that was legally put there. So just wanting to clarify what kind of criteria the applicant would need to meet to prove that they had a previously legally constructed awning.

Contractor.

I their think that's good think that's that's

Before second reading or after? Does it matter? Does it matter to you guys?

I don't think we'll be able to get that clarity, in advance of or that is necessary to delay the bill. I think we have enough documentation either within what we have and online and through the various planning efforts throughout the years

to, you know, for purposes of what we're trying to accomplish with

the rebuilds to be able to know enough. Okay. I just Who's rebuilding and awning?

To check-in, with my resource if that sounds, acceptable to you that they wouldn't have the criteria to determine who had a legally constructed awning prior to second reading of this bill, you're still in support and still want to move forward.

Yes. I think it's important

to keep moving forward. He said yes. Okay.

Thank you.

I heard my bell.

You.

Directors

Thank you, Chair. I of was just looking over the Board amendment summary form, of and I'm looking at paragraph four, and I see a couple of suggested just tweaks that I would put in there. It says any replacement encroachment. It should say any replacement overhead encroachment just to be consistent with the other uses of that word throughout the bill. And then I think the word that is missing between encroachment and does not interfere.

So it should read, any replacement overhead encroachment with less than 15 feet of clearance above the finish grade, beneath the encroachment, that does not interfere with public health and safety as determined by the director. That seems to make more sense to me than the way that it's currently written. Unless somebody knows why it was written that way, I would suggest just making those two tweaks. Thank you.

Okay. Director Molina, did you hear that?

Yeah. Thanks, Chair. We're in agreement. Thank you.

Thank you. Staff, is that something that you could incorporate into? Okay. Any other comments or revisions, corp counsel? Member Palton?

Thank you. Since we stated right now and brought that up, I was wondering if we could also add an amendment, to prohibit the, ground encroachments by aggressive cosmetic sales?

Thank you, Chair. So, this bill doesn't involve that at all. I think that would be a separate bill, but I'm happy to talk to you about that offline. And I just want to make a comment about the legal like with the way to determine the legal awnings. I think leaving it the way that it is, is important because as we go through this process and because of these the fact that some of these buildings are quite old, the way the criteria used to determine that may vary depending on what's available. If it becomes an issue, I know Mr. Smith would let us know, and we would definitely come back and try to amend that if it became a problem.

So you're saying we couldn't just add something that said, like, with exclusively overhead replacement of exclusively overhead encroachments.

So, it already means that. So, you don't have to worry. This only applies to legally constructed replacement over head encroachments. And that's why Mr. Hopper suggested the overhead because it really only applies to that.

And things that are on the sidewalk are probably not legal anyways because there isn't any law that I can pinpoint that allows somebody to block the sidewalk with a marquee or a sign. So that would be, again, a totally different enforcement mechanism. This only has to do with overhead encroachments. And just for the record, too, it isn't limited just to Lahaina. It would apply to any historic Maui County's treasure towns that are damaged by under some sort of a disaster under a declaration of HRS 127A.

So it's not just Lahaina Town. Thank you. Okay. Lucky thing JC Law is not here. Okay.

Members, are there any other clarifying question? Okay. So seeing there's no further discussion, we'll move on to decision making. Now the chair would like to entertain a motion to recommend passage of bill one fifty six on first reading. Moved by member Sugimura, seconded by Nohiev Hodges to recommend passage of bill 150 six-twenty 25 on first reading.

Members, any discussion before I move on to my amendment summary form? Seeing none, members, your chair would like to entertain a motion to substitute bill 156, twenty twenty five with the proposed CD one version incorporating the amendments referenced in the ASF's description. Able do do that. Half on to And we're on and sign. And In proposed code Section 12.52.050, the phrase to an extent of more than 50% of its replacement costs is removed and makes other the and other discussion?

Member Palton.

I moved to amend the substitution by the amendment stated by the first deputy.

Agreed. Second. K.

Just, clarifying that staff knows what they are because I couldn't recite them word for word.

Okay. Okay. Seeing no no further discussion, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Those opposed.

Chair, that's six ayes, zero nos with members Rollins Fernandez, comma, and Lee excused. The motion passes.

Thank you members. Now we're back to the main motion as amended. Any further discussion?

Maybe we're back to the substitution because I amended the substitution with miss Lejardan's amendment. So

Yeah. Okay.

Substitution and then main motion as substituted.

K. So all those in agreement with the substitution?

Chair, that's six ayes, zero nos. Members, Rollins, Fernandez, Leon Kom excused. Motion passes. Back to the main motion.

Thank you, members. Now we're back to the main motion as substituted. Any further discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye. I think member Johnson's frozen.

Nope. So that's six ayes, zero nos with members Rollins Fernandez, Lee and comma excused. Motion passes. And And able to

able that. Do team.

That. To

And