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

Good morning, everyone. Will the Housing and Land Use Committee meeting of May 26th, 2026, please come to order. It is 9.33 a.m. I'm the chair of this committee, Nohelani Uuhajins. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. I think that only applies to you, Member Johnson, for the time being. Let's begin with roll call. Council Member Batongan is not here with us today, so let's go to Council Member Cook. Aloha and good morning.

Aloha, good morning.

Council Member Gabe Johnson, aloha and good morning.

morning chair council members community members there's no testifiers here at the lanai district office and i'm alone on my side of the office with hokuchan johnson thank you cute thank you council chair alice lee will be joining us in the afternoon council member paulton tomorrow paulton aloha and good morning aloha streaming live and direct from the council chambers thank you

Councilmember Kiani Rollins-Fernandez, aloha and good morning.

Aloha kakahiaka. Happy to be here in person. No testifiers at the Molokai District Office. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. Councilmember Shane Senenzi, aloha and good morning.

Aloha kakahiaka, Chair.

and Council Member Yukile Sugimura. Aloha and good morning. Good morning. From administration, we have with us a Deputy Planning Director, Ana Lillis, Administrative Planning Officer, Greg Post, and Deputy Corporation Council, Nuna Kawa. Along with us is our HOU Committee staff. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for being with us. We have one thing on the agenda today, which is Bill 88-2026, amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Excuse me. to establish the H3 and H4 hotel districts, HLU 16. Members, I just said what we have on the agenda item today. The proposal originates from one of the recommendations made by the TIG of this committee formed last year on policies and procedures for transit vacation rental uses in the apartment districts. As proposed, H3, H4 hotel districts are similar to the A1 and A2 apartment districts, respectively, however, TVR uses permitted the day before the effective date ordinance 5909, which phase out TVRs in the A1 and A2 apartment districts would be permitted outright. The existence of the H3 and H4 districts may allow council to consider rezoning apartment district properties. The council transmitted this proposal to the planning commissions earlier this year when it adopted resolution 25-230 FD1. The Commission's recommendations were reported back to the Council earlier this month and are available on Granicus as item number two. In summary, the Planning Commission's recommended denial. Today we can discuss the bill and determine whether or not to move forward to full Council for its consideration. As a reminder, the bill would establish H3 and H4 zone hotel districts, but would not rezone any properties into those districts. That would have to be done through a later and separate legislation. Joining us today to aid our discussion is Deputy Planning Director Anna Lillis and Mr. Post. Thank you so much for being with us today. And before going into public testimony, I'd like to first ask for any opening comments from Council Member Cook in a second as the introducer of the bill, and then afterwards, Planning is going to have their presentation. So, Member Cook, if you will begin.

Thank you, Chair. The establishment of Bill 88 only creates new zoning category for the STR and apartment zone properties. It does not rezone properties. It establishes a new zoning category that enables the planning department to be used when deemed appropriate for zoning. Currently, there's A1 and A2. There's a whole issue. So this is to enable the planning department to have a zoning category. But like you said, it isn't to rezone anything.

Thank you, Member Cook. Planning, if you're ready, we're ready.

Thank you so much, Chair and members of the HLU committee. I'm going to kick it over to Greg Post.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ana. I have a real brief presentation here to give you kind of a summary of what's occurred since the last time you reviewed this item. Next slide, please. As you may recall, and I think as stated back in January, the council adopted Resolution 25230-FD1, forwarding this bill to the planning commissions. The Maui, Lanai, and Molokai planning commissions heard this item back in February, March, and April. As mentioned, the purpose of this bill is to create a new H3 and H4 hotel district I kind of think of this as kind of step one in a two-step process. The second step would involve actually creating or moving properties into the H3, H4 district. So the purpose today is just establishing the H3, H4 district that would accommodate that in the future or step two. Next slide, please. Within your report, there is an extensive report to the planning commissions discussing this item and more or less giving a lot of background on this item, also during presentations during the hearings. We gave an update to the commission as far as the adoption of Bill 9 or Ordinance 5909, which is what it's referred to as now, which discontinued TBR use in the apartment districts. Also gave information to the planning commissions regarding the August 13th council meeting where the TIG was created and the purpose of that. The August 14th meeting of the HLU committee where the TIG report, which is also attached to your packet, was presented to the HLU committee with its recommendations. And you may recall that the tag had two main recommendations, the first was to introduce legislation establishing a new age three and four hotel districts. That would be like for like with the a one a two apartment districts. Allowing the potential future land use changes in the future, and then their second recommendation main recommendation was to conduct Council initiated changes in zoning and Community plan amendments. for specific properties that may be able to be moved into the H3, H4. That would be part two of the two-part process. At the HLU committee, the TIG report also identified in exhibit two, which identified a number of properties that the TIG was recommending move into the H3, H4 district as well. That's part of your packet. Then on January 5th, the HLU Committee conducted its meeting regarding the bill specifically today, provided comments, and minutes were specifically provided to the planning commissions from the HLU Committee Chair, so those were forwarded to the commissions, and that's attached to your packet as well. Then on January 7th is when the Council adopted Resolution 25-230-FD1, forwarding this to the Maui Planning Commissions and the other commissions. Next slide, please. So real quick summary of the proposed code amendment. It actually implements the TIG's recommendation number one. The proposed revisions establish a new H3 and H4 hotel districts. The purpose in establishing these districts is to allow for existing A1 and A2 properties that were subject to Bill 9 to allow their continued TVR use. That's the main purpose of establishing these two districts. Importantly, these districts are like for like. In other words, they have the same development standards and same use standards as what's in the A1, A2. So these properties would get no other advantage than operating TVR use. They would be subject to the same development standards and same land use standards that they're subject to today. And importantly, this bill does not affect any properties at this time. That would be step two of the two-step process. In that step two, there would be a future change in zoning and community plan amendment that would be necessary to actually move these properties into the H3, H4 districts. That may or may not include all of the TIGS recommendations in exhibit two, so that's important as well. And then any of those changes in zoning and community plan amendments do require a future planning commission review and council approval before they're moved over. Next slide, please. And the department reviewed this proposed bill the department supports it, mainly because it only creates the base age three and age four zoning district, it does not affect any property at this time, as I mentioned, that would be step two process or futures changes in zoning Community plan amendments will need to be done and analyzed. The age three and four districts specifically replicate exactly as I mentioned the a one a two districts, having the same land use standards and development standards exactly. And then the department believes it was generally consistent with the Maui County General Plan. Next slide, please. The department had one slight modification to the proposed bill, and this was actually mentioned at the HLU meeting back in January. I mentioned this in verbal comments, and then actually presented this to the Planning Commission within the report that's attached to your packet. And that was to clarify that the properties that would be moving from the A1, A2 district to the H3, H4 are exactly the properties that were subject or allowed to do TVR in the A1, A2 and no other properties. It's only those properties. And so what the department is proposing to do is any of those properties that were allowed in the A1, A2 district today were allowed to do TVR based upon certain criteria. And so the department's recommending that exact same criteria be moved over into the H3, H4 district to make sure that it's only these properties that we're talking about that would be allowed to be in the H3, H4 district. Next slide, please. As the chair mentioned, the planning commissions heard this item back in February, March, and April. All three commissions recommended denial, including the Molokai Planning Commission also indicated that if the council does approve this bill, they would like to be a note except for Molokai applied to Molokai. So next slide, please. Finally, as the department was reviewing the bill and after the planning commissions, we noticed one slight change that needs to be made. I apologize for the late notice on this, but it's very slight that within the ordinance in Section 6, specifically Section 19.14050, which lists the development standards in the H3H4, it's a table on page 6 of the ordinance. It refers to the site setback. It should read 10 feet for the portion of the building 35 feet or less in height and 15 feet, not 20, for the portion of the building taller than 35 feet. It's a very slight change that I think it was just a slight error in preparing the ordinance. And that concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Before we get to asking you questions, though, we are going to hear from our testifiers. Excuse me. So testifiers wanting to provide testimony should sign up in the lobby, join on the meeting, online meeting via the Teams link or call into the phone number noted on today's agenda. Written testimony is encouraged and can be submitted via the e-comment link at MauiCounty.us, back SAS agendas as well. For individuals wishing to testify via Teams, please raise your hand by clicking on the raise your hand button. If calling in, please follow the prompts via phone, star five to raise and lower your hand, and star six to mute and unmute. Staff will add names to the testifier list. In the order the testifiers sign up or raise their hands. For those on Teams, staff will lower your hand once your name is added. Staff will then call the name you're logged in under and the last four digits of your phone number when it is your time to testify. At that time, staff will also enable your microphone and video. Please ensure your name appears on Microsoft Teams as the name you prefer to be referred as or anonymous if you wish to testify anonymously. If you are in person, please tell staff if you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of your testimony. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes, and if you are still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. Once you are done testifying or you do not wish to testify, you can also view the meeting on Alkaku, Channel 53, Facebook Live, or MauiCounty.us backslash agendas. We will do our best to take up each person in an orderly fashion, and right now, staff, if you could please call our first testifier.

Chair, the first testifier is Mayor Richard T. Bisson, Jr., to be followed by John Chasen.

Thank you. Aloha, Mayor.

Aloha kakahiaka, Chair Uhuhajian, members of the committee. Mahalo for this opportunity to testify in strong support of Bill 88. This will establish the new H3 and H4 hotel districts within the comprehensive zoning ordinance. First, I want to mahalo this council for the leadership in passing the historic legislation in Bill 9. That action reflected a commitment to prioritizing local families first and addressing the longstanding imbalance created by the concentration of transient vacation rentals in apartment zone districts. I believe everyone involved in this conversation ultimately wants the same thing, a Maui where local families can afford to live, work, and raise their children here at home. At its core, Bill 9 and the legislation before you today is about restoring balance to our community by addressing the urgent need for housing while recognizing the realities of Maui County's economy and long-term future. As we move through the Bill 9 process, I committed to ensuring there would still be pathways for properties to be appropriately classified. according to their intended uses. Bill 88 is a step in that direction, creating a structured framework with safeguards in place for properties that may seek consideration for continued visitor accommodation use through future land use actions. I wanna be very clear, this legislation does not unilaterally reclassify any properties nor does it undo Bill 9 or reverse the council's policy direction regarding the phase out of transit vacation rentals and apartment zoning. Instead, it creates a transparent process for the community, planning commissions and the council also to consider whether certain properties may be appropriate for hotel district classification in the future. I also want to acknowledge that all three planning commissions voted unanimously against this proposal. To me, those recommendations reflect the community's strong support for the intent behind Bill 9, while also showing how deeply important this issue remains for Maui County. These conversations are not easy because people care deeply about this community and its future. This legislation represents an intentional next step in implementing Bill 9. It establishes a clear zoning framework for considering properties that have historically functioned as visitor accommodations while continuing to prioritize apartment districts for local housing. This framework helps us move forward in a way that protects housing opportunities for local families while thoughtfully addressing the realities our community must navigate together. I understand there are strong feelings on all sides of this issue, and I deeply respect that. I also believe our community is strongest when we continue working through difficult issues together with humility, respect, and a shared commitment to Maui's future. I respectfully ask for the council's favorable consideration of Bill 88 And again, mahalo for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much, Mayor. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Sugimura.

Yeah, thank you very much for coming and supporting this. Mahalo. Appreciate it. In your statement, in your testimony, you said that this legislation is for local families. to support local families. So do you have any data that you could provide us that shows the housing, what this bill is impacting, and on purchasing of local families versus outside of Hawaii?

You mean beyond the information we provided during the Bill 9 presentation, beyond that?

Do you have current information, because you're supporting this based upon supporting local families, so.

Yeah.

Do you have current information on sales or what's happening? On sales? Yeah.

Yeah, the issue today is on rezoning H3 and H4, not on the sales of condos. We can bring that up at another hearing, but I'm here to clarify my testimony on... what we've testified.

Okay, I just thought because you said local families, I wondered if you had.

Yeah, I said that many times, almost as many times as you just said it. Thank you. Yeah, we are here for local families. That's clearly our intention. Right, right. But if you're talking about sales, I didn't come prepared to talk about sales today.

Okay. We can follow up if you need us to. Yeah, please. Okay. Does anybody else have any clarifying questions? If not, thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you so much. For being with us today. Thank you. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is John Chasen to be followed by Travis Liggett on teams.

John Chasen. Good morning. Thank you.

Good morning, honorable county council members and HOU members. My name is John Chaisson and I'm a 20 year owner at Maui Sands 1. I'm here today because I supported Bill 9 and I support Bill 88 and the creation of H2 and H4 zoning. This will provide jobs for the local economy and the creation of this new zoning will allow certain A1, A2 properties with current TVR status to transition to H3 and H4 to continue short term rentals. The TIG report identified the conditions by which this A1, A2 property can transfer, transition to H3, H4. These conditions identify whether a property is appropriate and attainable as affordable housing. These properties listed on the TIG and Exhibit 2 are identified not as appropriate for affordable housing because of the conditions they present. These issues are identified by the TIG report, and it includes whether it's a leasehold, whether the monthlies are affordable, whether the property lies within the sea rise impact zone, whether there might be legal issues with the property. These are some areas of concern as I read the TIG report. Please pass Bill 88. This would not only create jobs, but create a balance of TVR condos and hotels within the short-term rental market. and a win-win for everybody. But more importantly, I think I'm on step two. This gives Mowich Sands One a chance to be part of exhibit two. We meet all the TIG criteria, and some being a leasehold property, a land lease so short it doesn't qualify for a mortgage, $3,000 month lease located in the middle of a sea rise impact zone, and probable legal issues on the horizon. My presentation I dropped off today to support this has receipts that prove and support Maui Sands is not an affordable property with all the existing issues of Maui Sands 1. I'm asking the Housing Land Use Committee and Maui Council, when appropriate, to please include us on Exhibit 2 for the county-initiated zoning change. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you, members. Any clarifying questions related to H3 and H4? Go ahead, Member Cook.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. So you're supportive of the Bill 88 and the creation of H3 and H4?

Yes, I am.

Thank you. I want to bring to your attention and everybody's, that's the issue today and the... the balance of the legislation that potentially will come as separate. But today, focusing on that is the agenda. But thank you for your testimony.

Yes, I realize I'm probably partially in step two, but I support both because I understand, I really think there needs to be a balance for both that goes on. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Travis Liggett to be followed by Greg Royalski on teams.

Aloha, Mr. Lagarde. Good morning, Mayor, Committee Chair, and Council Members. Thank you so much for hearing me out yet again. I'm engaging in public life for the first time today as a citizen who is designated as sheltered by the federal standard for the first time since 2017. Every time I have appeared before you, the founder of FleshAware.com has not had a bathroom. It's something I couldn't crack. I don't know how to make money come out of anywhere if I don't have it. And I've developed Fussware.com. I educated the toxicologist and the disease outbreak people and all my doctors. The disinfection is not required or happening, but it is required. The MPGS decision requires that what goes into the ocean leaves the ocean.

Could you please stay on topic with us? We're talking about Bill 88. Yes, absolutely. Okay, thank you.

Absolutely, right. Rezoning properties or considering it that are not in compliance, especially when you're putting the same tourists that you're inviting here at risk has so many layers of internal inconsistency to it because it actually depicts to these tourists that everything's hunky-dory and it's safe to go in the ocean right outside these facilities. We know that's not true. And it actually appears to be legally indefensible because it would reinforce this false signal that things are safe, legally compliant, and the antis are okay. And, you know, I took a lot of time, three and a half years to get myself before the sponsor of this bill, chair of the wastewater committee to gently educate him that they were telling him wrong. It's not disinfected. And he told me it was delightful. I don't think he knew I was unsheltered at the time and actually at great risk because it was very sick from exposure to wastewater. So I really created a heart connection with him, but it was kind of like a sledge average of my soul to find out that this is happening because I don't think people think about unsheltered people as sponsors of bills, former research engineers. And, you know, one of the STR owners who testified in the comments said, if this doesn't pass, they're going back to Arizona. Well, that may not be the only person going to Arizona because our former DEM director is, in fact, incarcerated. These are real risks. It is a real crisis. It's illegal. And I would invite you to allow more time for this bill to be vetted and consider my section seven that allows philanthropy, so that if some crisis happens, we'll have an avenue for us to pick up these units and not say the oil industry or some effectively infinitely resourced parties. We could also refer the matter to the water authority, social equity and the white committee so that we can actually deeply look at these issues because we don't want to put you or us at risk anymore. And we also thank you would not like to invite tourists here. this new zoning and say everything's okay it's safe it's not legal it's not safe and you could also not pass bill 88 or pass it with section 7 so if some sort of global crisis happens all this liquidity is just standing outside waiting for these to be commodified forever like slicing up a ham And they will pounce. So we have to be prepared with something like Section 7 so that if all this liquidity comes in and swipes up these units without warning, we're prepared. So thank you. And thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. What a rock. What a great guy. And I just appreciate all of you so much. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Liggett. Members, any clarifying questions for our testifier? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Chair, the next testifier is Greg Reliske to be followed by Cara Burkholz.

Aloha and good morning, housing use committee. I'm here to talk about the hotel zones three and four. And so I just wanted to just kind of remind everybody that there are residents there. I'm not sure. We know that there's 6% ownership, but I'm not sure that we've kind of looked at the A1, A2 and seen the tax records to see how many are actually owner occupied. So I'm hoping that the committee had an opportunity to do that. And what kind of leads to the bigger question was what's wrong with hotel zoning one and two? There are procedures in place and there have been very clear for years to be able to do that up zoning. And these new zones are mimicking the A1 and A2. And we just heard from planning that there are operational or land use concerns. So it'd be great if we can get to those during today's meeting. Another big issue has been the tax revenue that would possibly change over this zoning change, going from the A1 to the H versions and the TVRs and all that. And if more of these units do become residential, which we're hoping for, and that tax revenue, the mayor's already talked about that they have a plan for that tax revenue. One of the other things is all three independent planning commissions have talked about this. They've all heard testimony. They've all reviewed the plan and they've all rejected it. And we know that the planning commissions have a lot of input and are normally very respected by the council and by the committee. So I'm hoping that you will really take the heart that they did reject this opportunity. If this does go forward, it would be great if we could have shoreline armoring provisions and parking and all those other things that are missing right now from the zone properties. They're cutting off the shoreline access. They do their best to discourage people from coming on their property. So if parking and shoreline access can be a part of that, that would be great. We've gone over this for a long time and we have multiple hearings more to go depending on what happens today. You know, it's been said before, you know, people over profits. Let's also think about residents over revenue, right? That is all I have. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Member Palten, you have a clarifying question. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Rilski. I just wanted to clarify the part that you said you wanted to understand about why H1 and H2 is not appropriate. Is that what you said?

Yes, we heard from planning that there are operational or land use differences because H3 and H4 replicate A1 and A2. But I guess I just don't understand what's wrong with H1 and H2.

Okay, um, I can't answer, but I'll try to work it into the discussion. I can't answer in testimony, but it has to do with the lot size frontage is setbacks and these are already built buildings, so it can't be changed, but I'll try and go into more detail in discussion. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I also tried to write down your, your concerns cause I think we've heard them several times. Um, so I'll try to bring them up and they're valid concerns. So I'll try to bring them up in discussion as well. Thank you very much for your testimony. Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Next testifier please.

Sure. The next testifier is car burk holes to be followed by Eve Hogan.

Aloha Council, or actually, sorry, Housing and Land Use Committee. My name is Cara Burkholz. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm a Kihei resident, and for everyone's sake, I'm going to keep this short. I'm here in support of the creation of H3 and H4 zoning, and I ask that you please recommend passage of a Clean Bill 88 to Council. Mahalo.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Eve Hogan to be followed by Sunny Cave on Teams.

Okay. Hello, Ms. Hogan. Good morning.

morning everyone nice to see you all again i'm eve hogan and i'm testifying in favor of the council following through with the agreement to create h3 h4 zoning i'm not going to say everything i submitted in written testimony because you all know it all already but bill 9 was passed clean with the understanding and commitment from most of the council members to pass the h3 h4 zoning so as to be able to follow through with the recommendation of the council's own tig report It was extremely clear and discussed at length and stated on the record. So this is not a surprise and it's not gaslighting of the community or any of those things that we may hear in testimony today. And I agree with what the Mayor had to say with one exception. He said that the Planning Commission voted no because it was a clear indicator that the community was in support of Bill 9. And I was at the Planning Commission meeting. I'm not sure that any of you were, but if you were not, if you did not watch it, I encourage you to do so because Bill 9 was, the Planning Commission did not pass H3, H4 housing because much like some of the testifiers, they did not understand it. They thought, they seem to think that H3, H4 zoning would create more vacation rentals, which we all know it does not. They seem to think that it would automatically move the entire Minnetonka list into these zones, which it does not. They thought H3, H4 zoning would create more water, trash, and sewer use, which it does not. And they thought that H1, H2 zoning was sufficient, which it is. isn't because it is not like for like zoning. And if I may be so bold as to try to address this gentleman's issues, it was to my understanding because H1, H2 zoning allows you to build bigger buildings with restaurants and all kinds of other facilities that are not what we currently already have. and the H3, H4 is like for like, apples for apples, it does not give us permission for additional support services to our properties. So corporate counsel and planning, with all due respect, may have given them the information before the vote, but they didn't interrupt them and correct them, and the audience was not allowed to do so. So again, with all due respect, if the planning commissioners did not understand accurately what they were voting on, their determination was not particularly useful. So I am respectfully requesting that the council do as you assured us on the record that you would do before Bill 9 passed and create the H3, H4 zoning so that you have the option of resolving this problem. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next few testifiers, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Sunny Cave to be followed by L.A. Keokone. Yes, Chair, I believe he's been promoted. Let me double check.

Can you call their name one more time?

Sunny Cave, it's your turn to testify.

Oh, there we go.

Hi, can you hear me now?

We can, and we can see you. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. A little computer problems here. Hi, my name is Sonny Cave. Aloha, Chair Ooh, Hodkins, and council members. My wife, Stephanie Workman, and I own one unit at Ma'alaikai that we operate through a business called Honu Hawaii Home, LLC. We have been testifying throughout the process here, and we are here today to voice our support for Bill 88. This is about modernizing the zoning code to match real-world uses. It's not creating a loophole, has been already discussed. And I think, you know, everybody that has been involved with this knows that for decades, there's a lot of properties on the Minnetonka list that have been operating legally. We are one of those. A number of these properties were actually built and have been used for visitors. They weren't originally intended as workforce housing. Our particular condo, our understanding is that when it was built in the 1970s, it wasn't funded or priced as affordable housing. It didn't receive any public support or And Bill 88 simply implements the TIGS recommendations by creating these H3 and H4 hotel districts. And the last thing I'll just say, if the county decides not to go forward with this Bill 88, then there's gonna be a lot of jeopardy still out there to be dealing with. All the negative economic impacts that were forecast in the UHERO report are obviously much more likely to occur, putting thousands of jobs at risk, reducing small business viability, cut state and county tax revenues that are needed for essential services. And then there's also the litigations that have been filed. Adopting this, I think, will help the county mitigate its potential exposure in those litigations. So I'll just wrap up and say Bill 88, it's focused, very encouraged with the work that everyone has been doing on it. It's a very elegant way to work through the very difficult situation that you all are continuing to work through with the full Bill 9 now having been approved. And I'll just close and say we strongly support and encourage you to approve Bill 88. Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please. You're welcome.

Chair, the next testifier is Pa'ele Kiakona to be followed by Ma'alama Min. Okay.

Aloha.

Aloha Chair, Aloha Council Members. It's nice to see you all today. I know, like myself and many of you, we are ready to move past this discussion, so we appreciate you opening this up for an opportunity for all of us to speak today. I am Paele Kiokona. I'm here as a representative with Lahaina Strong, and I am, of course, in opposition of the new proposed zoning. I do understand and I don't want this to be any more polarizing. I understand the need and the want of wanting to do this, given that many of these places were never intentionally built with that H1, H2 zoning. And I know I've heard some of the arguments that placing any of these properties into an existing H1 or H2 would potentially invite lavish expansion and runaway redevelopment of these spaces. And given their current footprint, We obviously cannot have that. And with Ohana Strong, we've been clear from the beginning that we are supportive of many of these individual buildings and properties being able to up zone and transition into and continue to operate as they've been because there are places that do not look like it was a residential building they operate they look like hotels they have full staffing they have union members they have front desk their own on-site laundromat and all of these things so we 100 of support and agree with that and would even come and support those and their upzoning process. But our fear with Lahaina Strong and many of the people in Lahaina is that this H3 and H4 zoning, new H3, H4 zoning will be used in a way that many of these new tools are used, which is quietly, incrementally, property by property, skirting under everybody's noses, and all the work that we've all done to get Bill 9 to this spot potentially undone. I do know that the council has this authority to attach conditions to any of their zoning changes. A conditional amendment that can be applied to the H-1 and H-2 specifically that when a property is up zoned solely because it was never properly zoned in the first place, that no structural additions, no expansion of footprint, and no increase in unit count may follow. So this potential, Amendment to this up zone, it resolves that legal status of what already exists, and it does not become a license to build more. That answer, the very concern being used to justify the H3 and H4 without creating a brand new category that develops, developers will spread or spend the next generation trying to, I mean, probing these loopholes. So we mahalo all of you for your time. And we just hope that this, if this is in fact pushed through, that it does not uproot or undo all of the work that we've done to get to this point. So mahalo.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Paulton.

Thank you for your testimony. I just wanted to clarify, you said that if H3, H4 gets created, then people might slowly, quietly apply for them over the course of however long. Why wouldn't, if H3, H4 doesn't get created, why wouldn't they do it under H1, H2 slowly over however long?

I think just because the definitions of what constitutes H1, H2 and what many hotels fall under are not actively categorized in a lot of these short term rentals that are potentially being up zoned or transitioned over. So some of them would not necessarily have the means necessary or even just the functionality within their own complex to justify that H1 and H2. But the fear is also just because we don't know who's gonna be in office five, six, eight years from now, and it could be very progressive individuals or people who are highly conservative and want to develop and bring in more revenue. And that's more so what I'm getting at because a lot of these things can skirt under our noses if not paying attention.

Good reason to stay engaged, thanks. Either way.

Thank you, Member Palten. Any other questions? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Malama Min to be followed by Jackie Keefe on teams.

Aloha, good morning Chair Uhuha-Jens and members of the committee. My name is Malama Min and I'm here testifying on behalf of the Realtors Association of Maui. We are in strong support of Bill 88 and the creation of the hotel three and four zones. in support of the hard work done by the temporary investigative group. And we just hope that the recommendations are honored and this bill is passed. I was also there at the planning commissions and it was quite clear that They may not have been as educated as you folks are on the issues, and so we hope that you folks will see that the creation of these new zones would help to balance the issues. Many of these properties are not financially feasible as long-term housing, and they're subject to high maintenance costs. Many of them were built in the 1970s or earlier. Many of them are so they are subject to sea level rise. There's high insurance premiums for many of them because they're in the flood zone. And as we saw with these recent Kona Low Storms, many of them were impacted. And so they have been operating as hotels. If it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. It usually is a duck, so we hope that this new legislation will help to balance the issue. And also, I don't think anyone here wants there to be more litigation. Another generation of litigating this issue I don't think is good for anyone. Thank you.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Jackie Keefe to be followed by Jordan Ruiz.

Hello, Ms. Keefe. I'm assuming she's online because I don't see her in the audience. There you are. Hello.

Aloha, Chair. Yes, I am online. I am arriving frustrated today, frustrated that we have come here so many times that I can't be there in person because I have lots of actual work to do. I'm frustrated that we sit here and we hear people vaguely threaten litigation. Oh, we don't want to see more litigation. Cool, then don't sue. There's already litigation against Ordinance 5909. And now that is facing a carve out. I feel frustrated by being told by people who refuse to have civil discourse about this topic, why we are wrong. I feel frustrated that they are sitting here and just speaking down towards the Planning Commission, which I would like to remind everyone is an unpaid government position. I feel frustrated hearing the You Hear a Report get mentioned because they only mention the things that show why the UHERO supports pro Bill 88 versus actually talking about the fact that the UHERO report also states that rental prices and housing prices would go down, which is literally the whole reason that Bill 9 was proposed. I feel frustrated that the planning commissions all recommended denial and that doesn't appear to matter here today. I feel frustrated that there's a Civil Beat article in which I saw Council Member Sugimura quoted saying that these units look like a hotel, walk like a hotel, and talk like a hotel. Well, I would definitely challenge you to please go and walk those properties yourselves because seeing shopping carts just parked on the properties against the wall is not hotel-level amenities. There are some of these properties, as Pa'ale said, that have operated that way. But let's not act like they all do. Let's not act like this is the majority. We do not see that. Financial feasibility is mentioned. Well, let's be honest. It's time for us to have a conversation about shoreline setback. It's not politically viable, it never is, it never has been, it never will be, but it is what the aina needs from us. The aina cannot stand up for itself and we need to do so. So I am sorry that I came so hot with my frustration today, but I hope that it will show people that these conversations are nuanced and we really need to stop pretending that they aren't. let's actually have conversations. So hopefully that didn't just cut out when my camera went off. So mahalo, all of you for continuing this conversation. And I hope that it can be an actual conversation.

Thank you for your testimony members. Any clarifying questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Next testifier. I see Ms. Reed is coming down and then who's after her again?

Corey McKim.

Corey McKim.

Hello everybody, my name is Jordan Ruiz testifying on my own behalf today. We conducted on the ground research by visiting nearly every property on the Minnetonka list. We observed operations firsthand and documented what these properties actually look like in practice and we gave those reports to you guys back in Bill 9. While a small number operate in a resort style manner, those are the exception. Based on our observations, roughly 10 buildings function at a level consistent with hotel operations. We would support targeted upzoning for those specific properties under strict criteria. At the same time, we have always acknowledged that not all Minnetonka units are ideal for long-term residential living. We have never taken the position that every unit must be returned to the long-term housing pool. Our approach has always been grounded in balance and realism. In most cases, we observe residential condominium complexes operating as short-term rentals, not legitimate hotels. We did not encounter front desks, consistent staffing, or hotel-like infrastructure. Instead, we saw guests writing license plate numbers on whiteboards and using shopping carts as luggage carriers. clear indicators of residential properties being used for visitor accommodations without meeting hotel standards. Maui condo vacation rental occupancy averages about 40 to 50% at a time when local families are struggling to secure housing. Thousands of these units sit unused for much of the year in the midst of a severe housing crisis that is not sustainable. We also need to consider the urgency. FEMA is scheduled to conclude its housing program in less than a year, with hundreds of our families still relying on that support. When it ends, those families will enter an already constrained housing market. There's no shortage of short-term rentals in Maui County, but there is, however, a profound shortage of housing for local residents. We recognize that all parties share the same goal of stable, thriving community, even if there are differences in the approach. While full consensus may not be possible, it is important to carefully consider the long-term impacts of broad policy decisions. If the Council moves forward with H3 and H4 zoning, it is critical that any properties considered truly meet hotel-level standards. We support the Planning Department's proposed criteria and urge strict enforcement. Hotel-like standards must include a functioning and staffed lobby for guest reception, dedicated on-site staff, including 24-7 management and security, on-site housekeeping and groundskeeping, on-site laundry or linen operations. This would really create jobs. If a property cannot meet these standards, it should not be classified as a hotel. We believe the county already has the authority to evaluate the limited number of properties that may warrant upzoning. A broad blanket approach is unnecessary and risks permanently removing residential units from the long-term housing pool forever. We have fought for this for nearly three years and we will continue to hold the line. Our community needs as many units as possible return to long-term housing. We respectfully urge the Maui County Council and the committee to reject this sweeping H3 and H4 zoning and instead pursue a targeted, evidence-based approach that prioritizes housing for local families. Mahalo.

Thank you. Member Johnson.

Aloha, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Ms. Rudeas. Good morning. I want to clarify your testimony. You said you guys went to almost all of the Minnetonka List properties. I, too, went and did a tour of all of them, went and checked all of them out. Do you think it's a good idea for this council, this body, to do site visits before we take the vote?

Yes, I agree, because... even after we did our site tours to every property, we were also taken aback by certain things. And we learned a lot. And especially, like Jackie said, the Civil Beat article, let's talk about what hotels look like, walk like, talk like, quack like. Let's go look if they're actually quacking like ducks and if they actually are ducks. And like I said, we do support roughly 10 properties up zoning. We would support it publicly. But again, that's not majority.

Thank you, thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Sure, thank you. Member Cook?

Thank you. My clarifying question. So you believe that by creating an H3 and an H4 zoning category, that that's gonna undermine everything?

Um... I think it would open the floodgates for every single property on the Minnetonka list to come forward to you guys and ask for that upzoning. And if you guys don't have clear, you know, asks, it's just gonna say, yeah, you guys can all upzone and then we don't get any housing back, so what was this all for?

So thank you. I guess my next clarifying question is, as challenging as it is to create a zoning category, I don't, how is it that you see that there's gonna be a flood afterwards? It's like anybody that comes and applies is gonna have to meet certain criteria that was outlined in the TIG and so I. I think just moving forward, it depends who, again, who's in office, how you guys vote.

You guys make the final say and if people are saying, oh yeah, we do this and we do that, like they're already saying they do and they might not, rubber stamp all the way through.

Okay, so it's, okay, I hear you're opposed to it. I just, thanks.

Yeah, and I also just, I really believe that you guys have the authority. You guys could have started the process. You guys could have, you know, you guys could have initiated Maui El Dorado right now. They have had it in their paperwork from the beginning, and we support them up zoning. They have ILWU workers. They provide jobs. They are operating like a hotel. So I really believe that, and I really encourage you guys to just start that process and get some of these properties going.

Thank you. This is part of that process. Thank you for your testimony.

My mic is on. Thank you very much. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Corey McKim to be followed by Pamela Tonpap online.

Sounds good.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Land Use Committee members. Bill 88 is an important step towards creating more clarity and modernization within Maui County's zoning code regarding longstanding lawful visitor accommodation uses. This is a crucial opportunity for the county or the council to help fix longstanding confusion and inconsistencies within Maui's zoning system, like the need for proper zoning alignment, modernization and clarity within the zoning code, longstanding lawful visitor accommodation uses. It is important that Maui County's zoning code reflects reality. Have any of you walked around Wailea or Kapalua and said, this is affordable? I respectfully ask the community to support Bill 88 as a majority of the council did during the Bill 9 hearings. Disregarding Bill 88 now would just simply feel like a bait and switch. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

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

Next testifier is Pamela Tumpap to be followed by SKB, both on teams.

Okay. Aloha, Chair and members of the Housing and Land Use Committee. I'm Pamela Tumpap, President. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay, great. Sorry. Thank you. I'm Pamela Timpa, president of the Maui Chamber of Commerce, an organization that has long and consistently advocated for attainable housing for local families. We appreciate that the mayor shared his support of this bill this morning. We were surprised and felt let down, honestly, by the Planning Commission's recommendations to deny Bill 88, given the tape recommendations and tremendous work done by the council members to create H3 and H4 zoning districts. This bill was supported by Mayor Bisson in advance of those meetings, as noted when he signed Bill 9, and by the Planning Department's recommended approval before the Planning Commission. Bill 88 creates an additional zoning option for property owners. It does not automatically rezone any properties. And yes, I understand over time with different players in office, things can change. And as was pointed out, advocacy and continued involvement is critically important always. So we appreciate those who are coming forward and sharing their thoughts. During the Planning Commission meeting on Maui, commissioners stated that county policies and community plans do not support the creation of new hotel zoning districts. However, the Department of Planning's own general plan consistency analysis included in the transmittal for Bill 88, they found that the measure to be generally consistent with the Maui County General Plan. So I hope we've overcome that. I deeply appreciate Eve Hogan's comments this morning. Commissioners also raised concerns regarding sea level rise and coastal exposure. We question this rationale in light of the goal of transitioning some of these units into long-term rentals and affordable housing. If these properties are considered vulnerable to future sea level rise, why would we place that burden on local residents instead? should managed retreat, relocation, or major repairs become necessary, it would be harder on local tenants and homeowners there, not transient visitors who live elsewhere and don't count on it as their full-time home. So we found that interesting, and they would face displacement, housing instability, and significant financial hardship more than those who are using those units for transient vacation rentals. So It was just an interesting comment and rationale that we don't subscribe to. Throughout the deliberations on Bill 9, many council members committed to honoring and advancing the recommendations of the temporary investigative group, the TIG report. Bill 88 represents that important and needed part of that work. We respectfully ask that you uphold those commitments and pass Bill 88. And we appreciate your time and attention to this. We all need to move forward, and we need to move forward with solutions and options. And we appreciate that. And most importantly, we need to move forward with attainable housing for local families. We are losing too many. And this is a part of a measure, but many more avenues are needed and we need to get on with it. Mahalo.

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

Chair, the next testifier is SKB Online, to be followed by Jim Sullivan.

Aloha. Thank you for taking my testimony. I am... Just wanted to bring a couple of points to the surface. I do support Bill 88 and thank you for your consideration. I do think that what the TIG did was a lot of quality work and I do think it's a good compromise to what Bill 9 ended up becoming. As far as bait and switch comments go, I feel like those that support Bill 88 are feeling exactly that sentiment that we were all led to believe during the Bill 9 conversations that Bill 9 would pass under the guise of H3, H4 zoning being created, I'm sorry, H2H, whatever it is, Bill 88 moving forward. I also want to mention or address future concerns of future who's in office and what happens with future buildings being accepted into short term rental use. And I just want to remind everyone that when developments start, there's a reason there's a public hearing period and there's a reason why those such periods occur. And that's the time for the public to, you know, object or accept new developments. And at one point, these buildings under all of our declarations were approved under such uses. And so therefore that's the way to address the future ones too. There is a process, a legal government process in place to address those every time a new development comes into play. It's not a sweep one all situation and nobody's time is more important than each other's. So we've all invested equal time, valuable time into this conversation. And I urge the committee who, unfortunately, it did seem similar to what Eve Hogan had said. It did seem very apparent in the planning commission meeting that there was a lot of misinformation as far as what they were coming together to discuss when this was before them. And it's unfortunate, but I am happy to see that we're before you today to try to right some of those wrongs. And again, if you didn't see or hear some of that confusion, I would also encourage you to watch that meeting. And also want to mention, you know, the question of what defines a hotel at this very point for Bill 88 is really up for discussion because, you know, shopping carts, a lot of residents appreciate the shopping carts. Who doesn't want to take a second trip to their car? Okay. So I do want to, you know, cautiously advise everyone to be very careful about what defines the hotel versus what defines you know, and really leave that up to number one, what the declarations were issued at for these different properties. But two, what are the risks in not allowing these to continue in STRs because of the carrying costs and the expenses involved in rolling them on our owner occupied. That is all. I really appreciate everyone's time. Thank you.

Thank you members. Any clarifying questions? I don't see member Johnson seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier please.

Sure. The next testifier is Jim Sullivan to be followed by Caitlin Miller.

Good morning, Chair and Council Members. My name's Jim Sullivan. I've been blessed to be able to visit Hawaii, or Maui particularly, for the last 45 years. And for the last 15 years, my wife and I have owned a condominium in Wailea, and we've rented it out short term. So like most of us, we had very strong opinions on Bill 9. I mean, it was a polarizing bill, strong opinion to vote both ways, which I respect both sides of it. The idea of H3 and H4, in our opinion, is a compromise. And by definition, a compromise never completely satisfies either party or any compromise. And H3 and H4 won't. But it is a fair compromise because it does allow properties that legally were used and were developed has second homes, allowing short-term rentals, which brings tourists onto the island, people who can't really afford to spend a week in a hotel. And it's good for the community. It's very good for the workers there. And it just makes sense. And it does allow the other 2,500 units, which are more typical apartment units, to be used for local housing. So for that sense, I do think it's fair. And I think it will, you know, there's already been a couple of lawsuits filed. Without this, there's gonna be more and there's gonna be, you know, it's gonna be years of litigation, a lot of expense on both sides. And I think this is a way to kind of stop that and allow everybody to kind of move forward in a fair and meaningful way. I thank you guys for all your work. I know it's been a very difficult last couple years. You know, the fires were horrible. We feel so bad for all the, for the community, what they've gone through. And now with the floods, it just seems that Maui can't get a break at times. But I do think this is a very good option. And I hope that the members will pass it as they talked about it during the last, testimonies prior to the passage of the Bill 9. And thank you very much.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Caitlin Miller to be followed by Kathy Fleming.

Sounds good. Aloha, Ms. Miller.

Sorry, Jim's a lot taller than me. Good morning, Chair Uhuhajens and members of the committee. Kaitlin Miller on behalf of the Maui Vacation Rental Association in support of Bill 88 as written. My testimony today is intended to bring the focus back to the zoning implementation work that was contemplated throughout the TIG recommendations in Bill 9 process. Bill 88 represents the continuation of that work. This legislation is ultimately about modernizing Maui County zoning code and creating a more internally consistent framework for longstanding visitor accommodation uses without creating broader or unintended rights under the existing H1 and H2 zoning districts. These properties occupy a unique space within Maui County's land use framework. They are not traditional hotels, but they are also not traditional apartment housing. Bill 88 helps address the longstanding zoning mismatch in a more precise and measured way. Maui absolutely needs housing solutions, and those conversations should continue. But Bill 88 is not about expanding visitor accommodation or increasing STR inventory. It is about creating greater clarity, consistency, and alignment within the county's zoning code while continuing the implementation work that followed the TIG recommendations. Bill 88 is not about expansion. It's a zoning modernization and correction work. Thank you for your time today.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Kathy Fleming, to be followed by Jennifer Staedig on Teams.

Good morning, committee members. Thank you for your service. Being here for three years, I've seen how hard this council works, and I really appreciate it, so thank you. I just want to echo the really good testimony that's been given here, Caitlin Miller, Jim Sullivan, Pamela Tumpak, Eve Hogan. I mean, go back and listen to those testimonies. They say it so much better than I could. But I do want to, speak to the fact that somehow it's given that the community supported Bill 9 from the first place, which I don't think is true. I spent three years talking to people on this island and everywhere I heard, even from people that never even vote, but they feel strongly about property rights and they felt like Bill 9 was unfair. So I would love to see it on the ballot sometime so we could let the people vote. But here we are because H3, H4 zoning was not a companion bill with Bill 9. The supporters said, pass it clean and you can trust us. We're gonna get this done later. Well, keep your promises. And, I would just also like to bring some sanity to this whole idea of people over profits and should we support the hotels or should we support the SCR owners? Jim Sullivan is perfect icon of SCR owners. We all tend to be pretty old because it took us a while to save up the money to buy an SCR and to work a lot of years to make that happen. And, uh, We're not oligarchs. We're not billionaire hotel owners. We are the people, and we're not hurting Maui County at all. We help Maui County a lot. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, members. Any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Jennifer Stadek to be followed by Stephen West. Jennifer Stadek is online.

Aloha. Oh, we can't hear you just yet. Can you please unmute your mic? It should be on the right hand corner. Okay, we can hear you now. Perfect. Thank you.

thank you chair and thank you council for hearing this this has been a a complicated issue and one that is is pretty close to home um i i am a born and raised key girl and a registered nurse for 15 years i live i can see the minutes i'm in opposition of bill 88. i can look directly at the minnetoy right from my window i walk through them i walk my dog all through them These STRs are functioning at such a low level that for hotel zoning with these little cards and things, I get it. I hear what the previous testifiers have said that they're for Maui County, but who is Maui County? Maui is us born and raised people who are trying to make a life. People who are professionals that are coming home. I worked on the mainland for many years, but I came home because this is my kuleana to be here. So our kuleana is to our residents, and I appreciate that these folks need to make a living with their STRs, but I don't see any businesses or any workers. They're not employing people at the many minatois next door. So I'm in opposition to Bill 88, and I appreciate your folks' time on this. I know it's a hard discussion, and we need to prioritize our residents. Thank you.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Stephen West to be followed by Andrew Church. Thank you.

Mr. West, I just saw you and then you disappeared. Sure, we can move on to the next one, but he's here. We can move on to the next and then we'll call Mr. West. He's on the phone.

The next testifier is Andrew Church.

Hello. Aloha Chair, members of the members of the Housing and Land Use Committee. My name is Andy Church. I am a small business owner and a Maui resident for the past 27 years. My daughter, her mother, her grandparents, her great-great-grandparents were all born and raised in the islands of Maui, Molokai, and Oahu. I'm not a mainland investor or a second homeowner. Maui, mahalo for the opportunity for my family to testify today in support of, I call it Resolution 25230. I keep hearing it called Bill 88, so if I say it wrong, I apologize. This resolution is an important step towards creating more clarity and modernization within Maui County's zoning code regarding longstanding lawful, legal visitor accommodation uses. Right now, there's simply too much uncertainty, too much confusion surrounding these TIG-appointed exempt properties. Many of these visitor accommodations have legally operated for decades, paid taxes for decades, have supported local jobs for decades, and have been a part of Maui's economy and community for generations. Yet today, many owners, residents, businesses, even buyers are struggling to understand what the future rules and classifications may look like. It is too important, we have to remember that this hearing is not about individual complexes or development or shopping carts. It is about whether Maui County should create clearer zoning categories that better reflect longstanding existing uses and provide more organized framework moving forward. As someone who works directly with property owners, visitors, renters, contractors, cleaners, and local business and local residents every day, I can tell you that uncertainty creates economic stress and confusion throughout the community. Clear zoning matters, modernized zoning matters, consistency matters. This is a crucial opportunity for the council to help fix a long standing confusion and inconsistencies within Maui's zoning system. It is important that Maui County zoning code reflects reality. Many of these visitor accommodations were originally built, marketed, sold, financed, and taxed, and operated for transient use for decades. This resolution simply begins the process of creating zoning classifications that acknowledge and organize those longstanding uses in a more transparent and consistent way. I appreciate that the council has taken the time to carefully evaluate these issues through the public process. I know there are many different opinions on vacation rentals, housing, and tourism, but regardless of those differing opinions, I believe a clear, modern, and legally consistent zoning framework benefits everyone. Again, this resolution is about zoning modernization and proper zoning alignment. It is not about individual complexes. I respectfully ask the committee to fully support Resolution 2530, aka Bill 88, and move forward with continued discussions. Mahalo for your time and your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier please, but please call the next two testifiers.

Yes, Chair. The next testifier is Stacy Alipay to be followed by Julissa Adams on Teams.

Sounds good. As Ms. Alipay walks down, I just wanted to note for our members, we do have about six or seven currently people signed up to testify. Please let me know if you need a break. We've been, I mean, it's been like an hour and 15, but we'll be here for a little bit longer. So let me know. Thank you. Ms. Alipay.

Hello, council members. This is the marathon that never ends, I guess. We have not talked about STRs enough already. I think it's important to respect the process, respect the public's time on this issue. A decision was already made to phase out these STRs and apartment zones. And I think part of the mistake of the whole creation of the Minnetonka list was this blanket these ones can STR, these ones cannot, when a zoning change happened. And so I think we're at risk of making the same mistakes that got us here, that have taken up years of not just this council's time, but the planning commission's time, the state legislature's time, and we're at risk now of doing the exact same thing, codifying the Minnetonka list with some blanket statement, blanket criteria, when we have the time, we spent years on this, to evaluate each one of these properties individually and ensure that they do fit the criteria of what is a hotel and what should be used as transient accommodations and what is potentially available to become housing today. I'm here for so many new development discussions and the argument is always like, if it's one more housing for a local family, then it's worth it. Shouldn't we apply that same logic here? If one of these units can stay and be long-term housing for people who live here, then that's worth the time and discussion and the real thought. No one is saying that all of these should be phased out and only for long-term residential. We've said multiple times we're willing to compromise and there are certain properties on here that should be hotels. They function like hotels, they have unionized staff, they are hotels. So make them hotels. But we should claw back every single one of these units to be affordable housing. And I think you guys are really misunderstanding that it's the voters that put you here, the full-time residents that live here, that raise our families here, that have roots in this place, that put you in all of these chairs. And as one of you said when this Bill 9 passed, part-time residents don't vote. You don't represent them, you represent us, the voters that put you in these chairs. And it's so important that you do this mindfully with your full attention on each and every property. And I'm just asking you to respect all of our time. This has the capability to kill morale of our whole community because so many people out there, I'm talking to voters every day, And they're telling us, what's the point in coming here and asking you for anything? Because you're just gonna do what you want anyway. And that is what I'm most scared of with this. I'm gonna keep showing up, sorry, I know some of you don't wanna see me anymore, but, You're just going to tell people their vote doesn't matter, their voice doesn't matter. Please don't do this.

Thank you, Ms. Alipay. My mic is on. Thank you, Ms. Alipay. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Sure, the next testifier is Julissa Adams and Jeffrey Gilbert, both on Teams.

Can you please call them again?

Julissa Adams, it's your turn to testify.

I'm sorry, I was having trouble figuring out how to unmute. Thank you very much for giving me a moment to speak here. I did very much enjoy living in Maui and running my condo here. And when I tried to move was the exact same day that Bill 9 was put into force in May of 2024. I was moving back to the mainland and I wanted to sell. And I've gone on the market. I'm now on the market for the third time in two years. And I've lowered the price of the condo from $875 to $650. We're now taking a loss if we can get a buyer. That's $225,000. We've lowered the price. And we have never at any point had any contact from a local who was interested in buying it. We have had contacts from other people from other places, but one of the things about Maui Kamaole, which is where I am, is there's only one parking spot. And the amount of, I had somebody, a Canadian, interested in buying and asking me about another parking spot, it's prohibitively expensive. I have a local Maui raised cleaner who's half Hawaiian, half Filipino. She said, I said, I'm giving people a thousand bucks if they'll bring me a buyer. Do you know anybody? And she said, no, this isn't what anybody like her wants. There's various reasons. I imagine you guys know them. But what's actually happening is. We're losing this. We bought it with money from the equity of our house. And we've already lost $225,000 and we don't have a buyer. If there was a local who wanted to live here, I would be happy to be part of the... Maui Ohana and help make that possible. But there's one parking spot and these places aren't set up for people to live here. I lived here during COVID and it's just really not set up as housing and it wasn't built that way. And everybody in the real estate community is just saying, well, the price is just going to drop until locals can buy them. and that's going to mean that on the backs of all of us we just lose money on the whole thing and people think we're making money we haven't made anything for two years i put a lot of energy into trying to support people's experience here and give them the aloha and give them the tips i don't make any money at all I'm from Boulder, Colorado. We have six different affordable housing programs that have all been voted for by people like me for many, many years. There's all kinds of different programs where there's money provided, certain places that were built to be affordable, different kinds of loan programs. It's a wonderful program. It works beautifully. People can live in Boulder where they work, but it can't be just put on the backs of people who are losing their retirement because We made the mistake of investing in a place that we were in love with and thinking that running a business here would be a great way to have Maui in our lives. I really studied Aloha and tried to contribute in every way I could, including when the fire happened. I put it on all the lists. Nobody contacted me after the fire to stay here. Not one person.

Thank you, Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you. Next testifier, please.

Sure, the next testifier is Jeffrey Gilbert to be followed by Brian Banks, both on teams.

Good morning. I'm one of the evil STR owners, but for some mistake, I don't really make a whole lot of money off this thing. In fact, our goal as an STR owner is to make property, a vacation stay in Maui, something that I'd like to be at for about $200 or $300 a night. not the 400 or 600 that the hotels we're talking about here typically charge. So we try to create an environment for our guests that are economical and families can actually come and stay and enjoy Maui. I do want to talk about two things. First, the history. The history that was presented here was omitted. The key parts of history are in July 2019, we almost were burned out of Kihei. But nobody seemed to learn anything from that. And so four years later, I had to suffer much worse than we did in Kihei. If I were in the Maui County government, I would frankly be embarrassed. That kind of thing could happen four years later, and there were not preparations for that. But in the spirit of never let a crisis go to waste, suddenly short-term rentals, which had been in existence for decades and decades, were now the housing problem. no the housing problem is the choice of maui and maui government entirely take a thousand acres zone at our set what i would call r7 and your housing issue is gone just provide the land for people to stay you don't expand very much just a small portion of the island and that would work fine but that doesn't allow for the opportunity i guess to seize people's property which is what you're talking about here, to essentially take property that has been longstanding usage, rezone it, and take it for purposes you want. I hear the term compromise, and it's ludicrous. That's how deep do you want to cut in? How much do you want to take away? There's no compromise here. If you want to do the right thing, my suggestion is either A, drop this whole effort, leave things the way they are, or convert all of the SDRs to H3, H4, and call it a done. Now you've incorporated them the way you want in the zoning. And make another 1,000 acres available for land, for housing, and develop that properly and appropriately. That seems like it's a pretty simple choice to do. And you wouldn't, in this process, you wouldn't have eight years before housing would come on stream. Anyway, that's about all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Good luck.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Brian Banks to be followed by Rob Benz, both on teams.

Okay. Oh, you're muted, Mr. Banks. If you would like to unmute yourself on the top. There we go. We can see you now. We can hear you now.

Thank you.

Aloha. My name is Brian Banks. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm testifying in support of Bill 88. I appreciate the careful work TIG did as a groundwork for this bill. I appreciate the work that went into creating Bill 88. And I very much appreciate the testimony of our mayor earlier today. It is very consistent with his initial position. Our mayor was the first person who used the, if it walks like a duck expression that many people use after him. This bill brings clarity and it's a good compromise that serves the community. I hope you eventually pass bill 88. Thank you very much for the work that you have been putting into this. I know it's very difficult and it has been a long time. I hope with the passing of Bill 88 this comes to a nice conclusion that serves the entire community. Mahalo for your time.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Rob Benz on Teams, to be followed by Lauren Rego.

Aloha, Council. This is Rob Benz from Kula in strong, strong opposition to Bill 88. The short-term rentals, they talk about the commitments that they say that Council members made, but there's a big difference between now and then. all of the planning commissions, they all said they no can. And when this was first introduced, I know a lot of people, local people, like previous testifiers mentioned, we might not testify and not, we're lucky if we listen and get a chance to testify, but we're taking a huge amount off of the list and then adding new zoning and then having more hotels zoning like the other one that was testifying an opposition that lives over by it. This is affecting our whole community. Unfortunately, they invested in something and it should have been workforce housing in the beginning with the Manitoba decision. So some of these are already in hostels zoning and they operate with hotel everything. So those ones fine, but I am very, very, very in opposition to creating this new H3 because that could also open up a new rabbit hole of hotels everywhere. But even if it was just taking like half of this off the list was what it was discussed before the planning commission opposed it. But that wasn't bad enough. But I'm hoping that with the planning commission, I believe it was all the planning commissions said this was bad. I hope that the council members recommend to not have this strong opposition of this. So maybe even it's going to court, no matter what, have them sort them out in court, what is happening or wait for the next election cycle. This is very bad for the locals, but the people that have money, they, Definitely going to make them to these things to testify, but they're not the voters. So I appreciate you. I know it's all hard. I feel bad for the thing is nobody's going to be able to go against the big hotels. So there's a lot of originally set for workforce housing that should return to workforce housing model.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you. Ms. Rego is next. And then do we have anybody else? If not, we're going to call Mr. West after her.

We do have one more after Lauren Rego. Bonnie on Teams.

Sounds good. Thank you. Hello, Ms. Rego.

Aloha, council members. I'm Lauren Rego, Maui Organizing Manager for R Hawaii. In that capacity, I work closely with Lahaina Strong, and I'm here to share an updated Minnetonka property analysis. Copies are being handed out. When Bill 9 was debated, Lahaina Strong spent over a year studying what the so-called Minnetonka list actually represented beyond just a list of names. Quick refresher, the opposition says these were never meant for housing, but DCCA filings and county records proved that some complexes saw a 40 to 60% decline in owner occupancy in just 10 years. STR owners would have you believe that these were always built to be STR. but the original documents and declarations for the properties told a different story. The majority of properties included no mention of transient visitor, hotel, or commercial activity in their original documents, reinforcing their intended use as long-term housing. And last but not least, we conducted in-person site visits to over 100 Maui properties on the list. And what we found was illuminating. As Jordan testified, only a small handful resembled hotel operations with front desks, staff presence, and guest services. The overwhelming majority did not. These are not hotels. And this brings us to today. The bill before you asked the planning commissions to create new H3H4 hotel zoning and they all rejected it because there's no broad justification for doing so. From our work on the ground, we know firsthand that the Minnetonka list is not a one-size-fits-all list, and a one-size-fits-all solution is hardly ideal. On one end of the spectrum, you have full-blown hotels like MKV and Mount El Dorado. On the other end of the spectrum, you have properties like the Hudkovic family home on Halama Street, whereas the neighborhood change doing SCR was the only way to keep the home and the family under the pressures of gentrification. In either of these cases, there is no housing to gain from either the hotels or the single owner parcels. We have always supported upzoning or permitting to keep these properties in compliance, but these are the outliers, the exceptions, not the rule. The vast majority of these A1, A2 properties were built as residential condominium apartments. They were not built as hotels. They've not operated as hotels, and they should not now be converted into hotel zoning to allow them to bypass the intent of Bill 9. If any property believes it legitimately functions as a hotel, the council and the planning department already have the authority to evaluate those claims on a case-by-case basis under existing processes, and we would support that. For the single owner parcels, we would support permitting to allow the continued use. If new hotel zoning designation is considered at all, it must be limited, case specific, and tied to clear enforceable hotel level standards, such as staffing, 24 hour security, onsite laundry facilities, et cetera. Blanket zoning and blanket community plan amendments are a slippery slope. No community plan has ever said Ma'alaya should be hotel zoned.

No community plan has ever said all of Honokawai should be hotel zoned.

Neither the original development plans for Kihei nor the current South Maui community plan supports blanket rezoning. Maui's apartment districts were planned as places for people to live, not as individually managed commercial businesses. Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Rego. Any clarifying questions? Member Alves-Fernandez, thank you very much for your colorful flyer.

Mahalo chair, aloha misrego, mahalo for your testimony this morning. You mentioned looking at the declarations and the intended uses of the properties and that some said transient and so initially the zoning, apartment zoning had included motel and motel was different than hotel because it was meant for workers, commuters, not tourists. But transient is so much broader. When looking at the declarations, did it kind of describe what they meant as transient or give any clues as to its alignment with what motel was intended and not hotel?

It's a good question. In our previous report that we submitted when we were talking about Bill 9, we kind of got into a lot of the examples of that language. There were very few that actually it was clear from like the gate that there was a, gonna be primarily tourists. And like one of those would have been MKV that had a variance from the 60s. One of them is like Maui Schooner that was always planned to be timeshare. So there's like a small handful that were really clear then there's more than half that don't have any mention, but on all of those documents, you had to check whether it was residential or whether it was commercial, and they don't check commercial. And then there's the vague ones that it always, the ones that did mention it, always in every case mentioned it as a secondary usage. So it was never the primary usage. And then it would say things like transient from time to time or use of their, I'm trying to remember, because it's been months, right? But like their guests or their, their servants even, you know, right? Like their housekeepers, like it was not, it was never to be a commercial business, in a majority of the cases, there were outliers.

Mahalo for that. And then you attended the Planning Commission meeting here. I did. And then, so to clarify, was it your understanding that the Planning Commissioners were misunderstood what was said when they explained that passing the Bill 88 could increase the number of short-term rentals, vacation rentals here.

Good question, my recollection of that meeting is actually it was the planning department that provided the information that it was possibly gonna create more short-term rentals and I know when we met with the planning department, we asked them, I'm still very unclear on it, so I'm not surprised that previous testifiers were also unclear on that, but it came from the planning department.

Mahalo again for your testimony, mahalo chair.

Thank you. Members, any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, Ms. Riegel. We're going to go to Mr. West, and then we have more testifiers after him. Okay, Mr. West, if you could please come down.

Good morning, Council Members, Stephen West, ILWU. We do support this bill, but it must have caveats. Caveats must be that there must be security, housekeeping, front desk. There needs to be staff on site. if it's going to walk like a hotel, talk like a hotel, then it needs to operate like a hotel. It needs to have sustainable wages that take care of those people. Our, our properties have wages, pension, medical, and now retirement medical for our members that work over five years and retire at 65. So that's a hotel. So, um, We do support it, but with those caveats. And I did submit testimony. I'm not gonna go and link to it. Thank you for your time today, but that's it. Thank you.

I have a question for you if members don't have any other questions. Okay, thank you. I guess I'll use some sort of writing paper. So your ILWU employees are at which properties? Do you mind listing some?

It's closest to this, El Dorado. Okay. We have, where they are, Cahie. but then we have the rest of the hotels. We have 5,500 members Maui County wide. So, um, please forgive me if I don't give you anything.

I was just wondering, yeah, if Bill nine affected and potentially on consideration in the future. So I just wanted your thoughts. Okay.

And I think, um, we're in the exhibits. Our properties are in the exhibit.

Okay.

So yeah, if you refer to the exhibit, we're, we're good with that. Sounds great. We initially testified against at the planning commission. Um, but with this, uh, with these caveats, uh, we will, we will support members.

Any other clarifying questions?

Thank you, Mr. West. So the sound like sounds reasonable. Um, I'm just curious that where's the partition as far as like size? because of the consequences if somebody has a small operation but they do have this type of criteria but it's not but it's a handful of people i think that's where it comes down to how we slice and dice yeah i think that comes down to you guys you know figuring that out i think

the properties in the exhibit, like Wiley, Ikahi, El Dorado, they're not big operations. Now if you say size, if we're talking 25 rooms, I think you're going to need at least a residential manager on site that's going to act as security. And preferably, you're gonna have employees that are employees of, not employees that get 1099, employees of that operation, because we want the connectivity to the property. We want, I mean, if you want me to go further detail, use the MIT wage calculator that's tied to the cost of living here on Maui.

No, thank you for that clarification, because I understand that. Thank you, I'm sure.

Members, I'm sorry. Any clarifying questions? Oh, go ahead, Member Sukumar.

Thank you. Nice to see you here, Steve. Good morning. So did you say there's a, you want, the property to be connected to, did you say MIT?

There's a MIT wage calculator. You can go online, and I can send you the data if you want it.

What does that stand for?

It's the University of MIT. They have a program that basically calculates out everything. We use it in our negotiations because it identifies the cost of living here on Maui. It's up to date. They update it. We're using it in negotiations that we're in right now.

Oh, I see. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Yep. Okay, thanks.

Real facts. Unfortunately, the gas prices don't quite keep up, but that's it.

For real, I had to put gas yesterday. Members, any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Bonnie on Teams, to be followed by Tom Crowley on Teams.

hello can you hear me we can hear you great uh thank you chair and committee my name is bonnie um i appreciate your hearing my testimony in favor of bill 88 as was voted in council last december which goes a long way to help maui find a proper zoning alignment modernization and clarity within the zoning code once that recognizes it is one that recognizes that it is economically essential to balance the needs of Maui's residents with the tourist industry and continue to limit any increase in buildings allowed to offer TVRs. Before April 20th, 1989, transit vacation rental use was an approved use in all apartment districts on Maui. But in 89, recognition of a serious shortage of long-term rentals, the county Council voted in Ordinance 1797 to ban short-term rentals in apartment zoning districts. But in that same measure, the Council exempted any property that already had its entitlements, such as building permit, SMA permit, or planned unit development approved prior to April 20th, 1989. Ordinance 1797 recognized original zoning for these properties allowed short-term rentals in certain areas designated as resort zones meant for tourists. There were already hotels in this area, but planning recognized the need to provide short-term rentals in a more relaxed atmosphere. They didn't want everything to look like Oahu. When passed, Bill 9 eliminated the right to do vacation rentals in A1, A2 zoning districts. permitting was not an option in these areas. To continue to operate as legal rentals, this left only up zoning to H1, H2. But that zoning is not appropriate around apartment areas and would allow these properties to bring in nightclubs, build higher buildings, et cetera, not things welcomed in the low rise areas. Hence the idea for H3, H4, pulling in the A1, A2 requirements. Criteria like shoreline rise, parking, et cetera, should be considered. But as was determined in earlier discussions, it should be applied to all zones that are oceanfront and not just one zone. It's not appropriate just to add it to one zone. Thank you for listening to my support of this necessary addition to zoning options on Maui.

Thank you very much for your testimony, members. Any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Tom Crowley on Teams to be followed by Kelsey M. on Teams.

Aloha, Committee. Tom Crowley testifying on my own behalf. Upzoning from apartment to H1, H2 zoning has never happened in Maui County and would likely prove impossible for all of these properties since it would require uh current compliance with building codes water requirements fire codes infrastructure codes and since all the properties we are discussing here were built prior to 1989 when codes were different there is no possibility forget the idea that anyone would be able to up zone to h1 or h2 zoning so put that aside but i do want to point out a parallel issue um to creating this these zoning districts that was made by the council in an action that it took back in 2011 when it created our ru2 ru5 and ru10 rural zoning districts the reason for these new rural zoning districts was to rezone agricultural zones subdivisions that had been functioning as rural housing and kind of make a duck a duck, right? But in the 15 years since that legislation was passed, I don't believe any properties were ever moved from agricultural into R2, R5, or R10 zoning. Why? Because this change requires a consistency with community plan, just as the change that would require going from H2 from A1, A2 to H3, H4 will require consistency with community plan. And that will be the time to have a lot of the discussion that people are trying to have today, whether it's appropriate to put these properties into these zoning. So keep that in mind historically as to what's happened. I appreciate the support from the mayor and the planning department for the creation of these new zoning districts. And you have my support as well. But it's important to recognize that neither Bill 9 nor this Bill 88 forbids any of these properties from being used as local housing. They can be used as local housing today. They would be able to be used as local housing even if they went into H3, H4 zoning. So the reality is... Most of these properties, whether you do this or not, are going to remain as second homes for people. That is the market for most of these. A few of them will transfer to local housing by people who have that need and have the availability. Let's not kid ourselves. The value is not going to drop to $200,000, $500,000 for these properties, and they would immediately turn into local housing whether or not you pass this or not. So just giving you some things for thought. I think a lot of discussion needs to take place today about what the criteria might be to put these people into this zoning. And let's keep in mind, these are not hotels. They were never hotels. The discussion about them having to meet hotel requirements is silly. That's not what's on the table. We're talking about residential units that were built specifically as second homes and the use of them as short-term rentals. But they're not hotels. So that's a waste of your time to discuss that. Thank you for the opportunity, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Crowley. Any clarifying questions? Member Paulton.

Thank you, Mr. Crowley. I just wanted to clarify. You said that they're not hotels, but there are properties already zoned H1, H2 that aren't hotels as well, right?

There are properties in the H1, H2 zoning districts that are not hotels, but those properties became part of that district when they were just raw land, when nothing was built on them. And someone would be able to build a hotel on them, but didn't build a hotel. Like in some cases, they built a condo there. But the idea that... a property that was built back before 1989 could be rezoned into hotel without knocking that building down to comply with all building standards, that's not gonna happen.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you, members. Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Crowley. Next, do you have a question? Okay, one second. Let me see where we're at. And then if, one, two, three, four, five. We have five more testifiers. Do you guys want to take a bio break? If not, remember, Cook, you can excuse yourself if you want to. But we can take a quick break. I was kind of hoping to do them before lunch, then do a quick discussion before we take the lunch and then come back. But, okay, thank you. Thank you, thank you, Member Cook. Okay, let's continue.

Chair, the next testifier is Kelsey M. on Teams to be followed by Junya Nakoa on Teams.

Aloha, Kelsey.

Aloha, can you hear me? We can. Okay, hello everyone. My name is Kelsey Mapa. I'm a resident of Pukalani and I am joining you today in opposition to Bill 88. Like many other testifiers who testified in opposition to Bill 88, I'm frustrated with this process and that we have had to come here so many times to rehash the same issue. I don't have a lot to share beyond what the others have already said. I support what the other testifiers in opposition have shared as a compromise and solution, which is to rezone on a case-by-case basis. And I would like to express an invitation for those who testified with claims that property rights are being threatened by Bill 9 and also those who asked us to consider history. Please consider that your property is stolen land, land that was part of the sovereign nation of Hawaii that is currently occupied illegally by the United States. I hope that you allow this process to help you develop empathy for people whose aina has been taken from them and that it inspires you to become more engaged in the Hawaiian sovereignty and general land back movements. Anyways, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I hope that you choose to take the recommendations of the planning department and shut down Bill 88, sorry. Mahalo. Thank you, members.

Any other, any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Before I call the next testifier, I would like to recognize Chair Lee. Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning chair. I'm here in my workspace alone. I'm looking forward to the meeting. Thank you.

Next testifier please.

Sure. The next testifier is junior NACOA on teams to be followed by Karen S on teams.

Okay.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Yeah. Yeah. That's all you can have me. Okay. Um, yeah, here we go again for knocking. Oh, here we go. Wasting our time. Ah, well, the maker of this bill. Yeah. He, um, why he never come to the community that really affect this, uh, this bill gonna affect, yeah. Like, hey, his, his, uh, his community come behind and come talk to us. You know what I mean? Um, you guys gotta learn to come talk story with the community. So we, we no more only three minutes for hurry up. and talk story, we can tell you guys our true feelings and passion. And I can give you a whole history of this Minnetonka listing, the North Kaanapali being built with the promise of this workforce housing here in Kaanapali, here in the Horn of Hawaii. Yeah, that is now short-term rentals, yeah. And all of these stuff. This kind of stuff is one that hurts us, yeah? And then now, we finally, you know, when we get through this Bill 9, not going to go over that damn thing all over again. But here we are because you guys, like, make it longer, make us waste our time again, and then come up with on H3, H4, where you guys, all these... so-called complexes or whatever, motels, whatever the hell you want to call it nowadays, they can go ahead and then apply or get into these hotel zoning and whatnot. It's always there. Yeah. Here we're going. What's to stop? The next maker of another bill, and I'm pretty much going to be the same guy again, will make on H-5 and H-6 later on. And we're going to keep on going and keep on going. And then guess what? People have been talking about compromise. You know us Hawaiians, we're tired of compromise. That's what got us into trouble. But we're the ones who are always compromising with ourselves. We end up giving in to ourselves. And then we jam up. I've already compromised. I think it's time for us to take action. um and um just stick with what we get okay we got here we got this far let this bill go through bill nine that is going through okay thing not even gonna come into effect in for a couple years right let it go to claim and then and then after that you brothers come back and change them no change before the mother even go into effect no go change them just before we even try the damn thing okay and then yeah one real quick one i don't power i'm gonna finish them Your guys' planning commission was appointed by you guys. Hope you guys listening to them about how they all in denial, man, denied this bill. Yeah, because you guys tend to listen to them when they pass from other projects, yeah? And remember now, they're not paid. They work hard. You guys didn't put them in that seat. Please listen to them. Shoots.

Thank you, Mr. Nakua. Any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Next testifier, please.

Sure, the next testifier is Karen S. on Teams to be followed by Kai Nishiki on Teams.

Okay.

Aloha, my name is Karen Smart, and I'm here speaking in support of Bill 88 regarding the H3, H4, zoning. This Bill 88 is not a surprise. It was a promise when Bill 9 passed with a TIG list attached. It's a like for like A1, A2 to A3, H3, H4, not a new additional zoning. There were promises that this was going to go through after Bill 9 passed, which pushed a couple people to vote for that bill with the promise attached. Quote I feel committed to pass the H3 H4 legislation. I feel committed to those TIG parcels. That's Tamara Poulton. Quote forthcoming legislation forthcoming legislation companion legislation that will continue short term uses in the new zoning areas was from Senincy. And then of course Hodgson said she'll work hard with the other council members to ensure the TIG recommendations are implemented. Everybody thought that everybody was on the same page, but sounds like they were not. And everyone is shocked that there's this bill, this bill 88, they don't know anything about. So, The TIG was not simply an effort to preserve short-term rentals. The TIG reviewed properties individually and attempted to identify which miniaturized units were more or less likely to realistically contribute to long-term housing goals. It's not about making it look like hotels. There was a whole criteria. You guys know all that. You went through all of it. Just kind of recapping. I also just want to mention all these things that are being built right now, all these 880 units from 2023 to 2025, 2,839 units in the next five years from 2026 to 2030, and the new one that they're talking about, Bill 163 and 164, 1,608 new affordable units. It seems like an awful lot. to also try to attack this other promised companion bill. So I'm just bringing that up just for you guys to digest. Of course we've been talking about this for a long time and you know everything. I just wanted to kind of throw that out there that we're going to have an abundance of housing and we We were, you know, people promised other people on the council to do this companion bill. So I encourage council today to focus on follow through, transparency, and honoring commitments made publicly during prior deliberations. And I appreciate all your work. Thank you for your time.

Aloha. Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Kai Nishiki on Teams to be followed by Pete Rusiker on Teams.

Aloha, Ms. Nishiki. Aloha, Chair and members. I want to focus my testimony specifically on the need to address sea level rise, shoreline erosion, and the long-term future of Maui's coastlines within this proposal. Zoning is not just a technical designation. Zoning is the implementation mechanism of our community plans and our long-term vision for Maui County. The decisions made today shape not just housing policy, but the future condition of our shorelines, our economy, and our public trust resources for generations. I respectfully urge the committee to consider requiring a sunset provision for any H3H4 zoning applied to properties affected by the officially adopted erosion hazard line. and this would affect approximately 2,000 units on the shoreline, most of them in West Maui. At some point in the future, when coastal hazard thresholds are reached, those properties should refer to open space conservation or park zoning rather than continue intensive shoreline development indefinitely. Why is this important? Because we already know what is happening to many of these coastlines. Beaches are narrowing, shorelines are migrating inland, infrastructure is becoming exposed, emergency shoreline hardening requests are increasing, public beaches and access are being lost. And yet we continue to make land use decisions as these shorelines will remain stable forever. We should not create zoning frameworks that unintentionally encourage long-term reinvestment in highly vulnerable shoreline areas without also planning for eventual transition of those lands. To use coastal properties as justification, to continue STR use without putting any protections on them is irresponsible. A sunset or reversion mechanism would help protect the long-term health of our coastlines, support the natural landward migration of beaches, reduce future public liability, and provide clarity to property owners, residents, and future decision makers. Most importantly, it aligns zoning with physical reality. Our environment is our economy. Maui's beaches, reefs, and shorelines are not just scenic amenities. They are the foundation of our tourism economy, our cultural identity, and our natural protection from coastal hazards. If our shorelines become armored coastlines lined with sea walls, emergency revetments, collapsing infrastructure, we all lose. economically, environmentally, and culturally. I ask the committee to carefully consider whether these shoreline parcels are truly appropriate for long-term housing. Some may only be suitable for time-limited occupancy under a managed transition strategy. Planning for retreat does not mean abandonment. It means being honest, proactive, and responsible about the future we know is coming and is already here. We have an opportunity right now to create zoning that supports both housing needs and long-term coastal resilience. I urge the committee to think not just about the next five or 10 years, but about the next generation of Maui residents and the coastlines they will inherit. If we want housing in West Maui, the county can easily fast track permitting on already entitled projects in West Maui safely outside the coastal hazard zone. And we don't need to wait many years. Construction can happen very quickly. We've already seen that with the teacher housing built in West Maui. Mahalo nui. My mic is on.

Thank you, Ms. Nishiki. Anybody have any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, it appears that Pete Rusiger dropped off on team, so our next testifier and currently the last person signed up is C. Rose Riley in the chamber.

Okay. Ms. Riley.

Aloha. Aloha. So I was thinking back historically in order to be able to testify today because we've talked about this so much. And I feel like the details are so eloquent in what we can be in true assessment. And so our true assessment is of this historical native intelligence that has guided this archipelago to such abundance to be called the paradise of earth and all of these things that everyone is so wanting to come here and take. And so this building was established in giving, and that is what it means to have something here in this archipelago so isolated from everything else, is to give to this place in order for it to give back, because it is its own self-sustaining and very needing to be will not be. There is no price point on shipping in water. And the water points for me are the, I mean, it's the glaring elephant in the room. If there's no water here for these things, that is real planning. What is our investments in water? Do you know that that is a possibility? That we can invest in our future water that is being built and accumulated like you consider wealth in a bank account? This is what we're really facing. And so, I mean, I come to all of these things about like, it seems like it's just a choice, you know? And there's this new movie, it's called Awakening. It's about glyphosate blackouts. And so I'm thinking back to my beginning in Maui County with our, you know, trying to get just accountability for the chemical testing and our entire galley shouting, shame on Yuki, as she blocked us from our international success against big chemical companies. And then I think back to my friend asking me, you know, who is Alice Lee? And I'm like, well, she did say she really wants to hear what Keanu Sai has to say. So I think we should give her a chance because independence and sovereignty is the only thing that will save this archipelago. And so, you know, last week, my niece was abducted in a gas station. A guy ran up, grabbed her, threw her in the car. He pulled up at another stop after beating her for how long and then this other guy tried to help her. He almost beat that guy to death, stole her again, you know. Whipped her in the car and then committed suicide doing 90 on the highway. And these are the kinds of things that are on the other side of it's this choice or that choice. My friend who is raised in Kilo in this indigenous wisdom has the same weight of vote as this woman who just came here. She's been here for how long and what is her investment in reality? Not only for herself and what she brings to creation of our communities, but here as well. Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Riley. Any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Next testifier, please.

Chair, we have Christopher Salem on Teams as currently the last person signed up.

Okay.

Well, I guess it's still morning. Good morning, council members. Good morning. I appreciate you know, all of the testimony of my gosh, so many citizens and so many perspectives on what's in play here today. I'm not sure if everybody is in the same position that I am that I am so confused by what the end goal of all of this is. I can speak for the record that I've developed large apartment complex that I developed condominium projects, I developed single family homes, I developed infrastructure, underground, with civil engineers, land planners, et cetera, et cetera, I understand the process in-depthly. I don't understand what we're doing here. We're doing it again, just like we did in Napili, where we have a hotel district wherein we call it zoning for what can be built on the individual parcels. But that's an overlay. You peel back the onion, and each parcel you can build certain things by law. Ms. Nishiki, you spoke very well about that. Which one takes precedence? Community plans? Alleged zoning? Greg Brown, for example, is not zoned Hotel H1. The structure is built Hotel H2. It's 45 feet high. You get on the elevator, it says ground floor, first floor, second floor, all the way up to the third floor that has a kitchen and everything on it. What is it? By law? By rule? So everyone asks the question, why does all this end up in litigation? I just gave you the answer. It's because there's no investigation by this council to clarify what do our ordinances speak to specifically as allowable usages or structures. Guaranteed, no matter what you do today, this will end up in litigation one way or the other. But I'm going to finish with this vision for West Maui. where I have a family with an 85 year old Kapuna, my wife, two children. No, I'm not gonna be able to go down to Hana Kauai and live in one of those units, let alone spend three or $4,000 a month. My issue is this, where's all the money from all the new Westons and everything from the Hyatt to the Pink Palace? Look, Malka, anybody see workforce housing? Anybody see an overpass? Anybody see a farmers market at each train station that could take people living in wonderful villages or, I will finish, rental units that they can walk to work? Where's the honor of the people who actually work in these resorts? And where did all the money go when those thousands of units were developed? Why don't you investigate that before you mess around with all of this? Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony members. Any clarifying questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Next testifier, please.

Sure. No one else has signed up to testify. So proceeding with the last call, if anyone in the audience or on teams would like to testify, please come up to the mic and begin your testimony. Here's a brief countdown. Three, two, Seeing no one here, no one has indicated they would like to testify.

thank you members think there are no individuals wishing to testify without objection i will now close oral testimony for this item thank you and as a reminder written testimony will continue to be accepted my plan members is to do a quick discussion and take a lunch and then come back after that and then we can have a very i'm hoping a robust discussion this afternoon If you don't mind, I'm gonna have Member Cook begin our discussion as the introducer of this bill. So, Member Cook, please begin your discussion.

Thank you, Chair. This morning's testimony was very vibrant. I'm looking forward to our discussion this afternoon, and I'm hoping that all the testifiers will follow along. I think that there is a combination of misunderstanding, fear, concern, very strong passion about the need for housing, the pathway for housing. The thing that I think a little bit is missing is the economic aspect of our community that basically supports the housing and supports the infrastructure for it. So I'm looking forward to this afternoon's discussion and I'm grateful to everybody who came and gave testimony today, Chair.

Thank you, is that sufficient? Just double checking.

Chair, maybe if there could just be maybe one question. Do you have a question or does anybody have a question?

And then I'll go to Member Paltin just to be super safe.

One of the testifiers commented that the planning department during the planning commission hearings stated that this H3, H4 zoning category could potentially add to the STR inventory. Could you comment to that?

Please.

Thank you for the question. I don't recall that occurring or indicating from the planning department itself. I think there was some discussion from the Planning Commission at the end of their deliberations, specifically the Maui Planning Commission that was talking about consistency with general plan policy on whether or not this would increase units because Bill 9 had already passed, but I cannot recall anything from the Planning Department indicating such. So I guess my question is.

Three minutes, by the way, thank you. Go ahead.

So the Planning Department's position is this going to potentially increase what, how do you feel about whether it's gonna increase it or not?

Well, it would not increase anything more than what we have today. Bill 9 naturally removed TVR from the apartment districts. So it depends on how you look at it, right? If you're now putting some of those Bill 9 units back, then is that an increase or not? I don't know, it's just more or less looking at Bill 9 and kind of, kind of trying to figure that out. So I don't think it necessarily increases anything more than what we have today.

No, thank you, because I think that you put your finger on it. Thank you very much. That's all my questions.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Member Cook. Member Palten, I'll have you ask your question, then we'll take a lunch break.

Thank you, Chair, and that's probably a good plan because I think my question is for Corp Council, and I don't know if they need time to research it to get back to me, but one of the testifiers said having the condition or in the zoning require either 24-7 security or staff onsite and housekeeping. And so the question is, is that something that could be legally worked into the criteria of H3, H4 zoning?

Sure, did you want me to answer that now? I have a general answer to your question. If you wanted to add them as conditions, they would need to be authorized by the property, they'd need to agree to the conditions, and so it would require, any conditional zoning would require

sort of individual determinations because the- So kind of like it's too early, it should, because to create an H3, H4 zoning, it's not gonna make a unilateral agreement. It's when we move a property to the H3, H4 zoning, then we would put the conditions?

Yeah.

So it's not at this step?

Not necessarily. If you wanted to do it as conditions, that is the appropriate route. It would be to do it after zoning.

Even if it were not conditions but criteria?

It would depend on the criteria if you had additional specifications for what qualifies as these transient uses. But I couldn't tell you hypothetically. I'd need to know sort of what you were looking to do to give you an answer based on what you were looking to do, whether it was something we could implement or not.

Okay, so I guess I got work to do during the break, not you then.

Thank you. Thank you, members. Do you guys have any burning questions? I see Member Rollins-Fernandez. Go ahead.

Mahalo, Chair. Yeah, just a question for the Planning Department over the lunch break, if possible. The number and which properties exceed 35 feet? That would be in the... A four, I guess. A two.

The number of, I'm sorry, the number of existing properties exceed 35 feet in the apartment districts? I do not have the answer to that. We'd have to research all the different buildings.

Can you do that over lunch?

No, that would be impossible. No. Even to look at some of the, we'd have to pull building permits for each of these apartment buildings, and some of them are quite old, so you'd have to, whether or not they even indicated a height would be interesting on the building permit itself. So I'm not sure we would even have all of that information without actually going out to each site visit and actually trying to shoot or scale the height of each building.

Okay, thanks. And the reason I'm asking is because of the maximum building height in Bill 88. And so I'm just trying to understand where that number came from and

The maximum building height in Bill 88 directly comes from the A1, A2. So there may be apartment district buildings currently that are non-conforming to building height in the A1, A2. They would continue to be non-conforming to the building height within H3, H4. So does that make sense? Or does that help?

Yeah. Well, so it's currently in the apartment district until it's phased out. So... Yeah, because it's proposed to be 35 and then 60.

That is correct, and that's exactly the building height that is in the A1 and A2 to match that.

Right, and that's why I'm asking where the numbers come from for it to be in the apartment zone. Is it because it was pre-existing or that was?

Originally, I'd have to go back and have to look at when the apartment zoning district, so way back in the 60s, the apartment district changed quite a bit to A1, A2, A3, and back and forth. I'd have to go back to those to see when the building height was created, but I assume it was created back at that time, sometime in the 60s maybe. So I'd have to go back at that legislation and look at that when it was established at that building height.

Okay. Mahalo. Mahalo, sure.

Of course. Thank you. Any other questions you would like to be researched over lunch since apparently that's what we're doing right now? If not, it is 1253. I'm sorry, 1153. It is not 1253. And we are gonna take a lunch to return at, what time do you guys wanna come back? 1.30, our standard 1.30?

Okay.

Okay, then we will reconvene at 1.30. It is 1153. See you folks back at 1.30. We are now on lunch recess. Good afternoon, members. Will the HLU meeting please reconvene? It is 11, I'm sorry, why do I keep messing up the times? It is 1.41 p.m. And we left off before lunch in the middle of discussion, so we're gonna continue with discussion. Each member will have three minutes apiece, and we will go until hopefully our questions are exhausted. I do have two committee members with a heart out at five, So if we could finish by then, I would, and they would, appreciate it. You too? You have a hard out? Okay, so we have three committee members with a hard out at five. And we will, again, pick up deliberations where we left off. Please raise your hands if you have any questions. I know we all asked either planning department or Corp Council some questions before lunch, so. Member Rollins-Fernandez, I know you were asking them some questions. Do you wanna ask them?

Sure, mahalo, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Okay. Okay.

Okay, so in following up with some of the questions that we receive during testimony, why could we not just do the change in zoning with H1, H2, and create a new H3, H4 zoning.

I'm sorry, my mic was off. Did you want planning to answer that? Yes. Okay, great. Planning, if you don't mind.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the question. So in that regard, we did try to look at the Title 19 audit because it does state very clearly that it is best practice not to rely on conditioning a zone change request to address potential negative impacts. So for us, that means that to the degree possible, we should try to address any limitations on impact and development standards in the zoning district itself and not the conditions.

Okay, mahalo for that. So if we were to add on, I mean, I don't know, I guess I'll wait for a proposal to get to that question. Okay, and then I guess, I don't know how to ask this question. We're kind of talking about in the planning commission meeting where there was a new complex, 24-unit complex that was added to the Minnetonka list. My question was how was that able to be done under the existing conditions in the apartment zone under subsection G where the complex would have need to have been legally conducted in any lawfully existing dwelling unit within the building or structure prior to September 24, 2020 as determined by RPT class or payment of general excise tax and transient accommodation tax and see the number of room or units allowed for transient vacation rental use may not increase beyond the allowed uses as of January 7, 2022. So the question about how are we adding TBRs to the list, and then the question about whether there would be more TBRs in creating the H3H4. Thank you.

As we discussed back in Bill 9, and we discussed the Minnetonka list to some extent, and the Minnetonka list had a list of, I think, around 7,100 units on that list. In addition, when we were discussing Bill 9, and then also in the 8384, when we discussed this with the planning commissions as well, I noted that there's a list of, there are other properties within the apartment zoning district that were constructed prior to 1989 that the finance department had made us aware of during the Bill 9 discussion. That was about 1,700 units. Those units were not on the Minnetonka list or not on the Minnetonka list, but they are in the apartment zoning district and they were built prior to 1989 and that's one of the main criteria of being able to operate transit vacation rental in the apartment district is you have to be built prior to 1989. So there was a property that you're indicating. It was Kihei Villas, I believe, and it was a 24-unit project that came to the department sometime around 2023, 24, because I was in the department, and they requested to be able to be put on the minotaurial list because they felt that they met all the criteria that were listed under the apartment zoning district of meeting that criteria to be, to operate legally TVR. Subsequently, they submitted all the information they needed to submit. We checked it and verified, also with the finance department, verified that indeed, that they did meet all the requirements within the apartment district to operate TVRU. So subsequently they were added to the minotaur list. So there may be other units in those 1,700 units that we don't know whether or not they currently meet or do not meet the requirements of the apartment zoning district subsection G. Importantly, the finance department indicated that those 1,700 units currently have, I believe, a non-owner occupied tax rate. So it doesn't appear that they're operating that way, but we don't know. So I don't think the H3, H4 doesn't add any additional units by doing what we're doing with the H3, H4. We're talking about all those units, all those units that meet the requirements of the A1, A2 to operate as transit vacation rental units. Those are the units that we would be putting into H3 and H4. And with the department's recommendation of moving that subsection G over, excuse me, into the H3, H4, that would then secure that it's only those units. We wanna make sure it's only those units in the A1, A2, not any more units. We just don't have a finite number of what that number of units are that meet that criteria because of those extra units in the apartment district that we don't know, right? So does that help explain the situation?

And if I could add, so H3, H4 would not make any new Minnetonka properties. It would just be a zoning district that people can qualify for, but regardless of Bill 88, those properties would still qualify if they met the criteria regardless.

So just a quick follow-up, the 1700, well, minus 24, so 1,676 potentially, could apply for the H3, H4 zoning, even though they weren't recognized on the Minnetonka list.

Yes, if they met the criteria in subsection G, so that would have to be verified as well, that they met all that criteria. I'm not sure they do or do not. We just know that there's 1,700 roughly units that are in the apartment district within buildings that were built prior to 1990. That's what we know. So that was more or less one of the qualifiers in subsection G of the apartment district. So if it met that criteria, if it meets all the other criteria, I don't know. We'd have to verify that. But yes, if they did meet all that criteria, then yes, they could apply to be in an H3, H4 zoning district, yes.

Okay, but only the units that were operating before 2022?

That is correct, because that's one of the criteria in subsection G. Okay, mahalo, Mr. Post, mahalo, Chair.

Of course, thank you. Member Cook, and then I saw Chair Lee moved her microphone to her face earlier. Did you have any questions after?

That was only because I was hiding the candy I was eating.

Oh, okay, okay, fair, fair. Member Cook.

Thank you. So for planning, will the H3, creating H3 and H4 category, will that have any impact on your ability to monitor and regulate transification rentals?

For us, thank you for the question. We do think that it would make it easier to have clear zoning districts where people don't have to prove to us each time we knock on their door after we see their ad online that, hey, are you operating? Do you have the criteria, et cetera? It makes it very clear after the sunset date of Ordinance 5909 that if you're not in that district that you can't be conducting that use. So we do think that it would streamline and create a lot of more transparency.

As my next question, the implementation of this, like creating this category, H3, H4, doesn't necessarily rezone anything, but it creates a category that the, whether it's exhibit two or whether it's just the maitola list, whatever, that it gives you a, there's a process. will this help the process facilitate? I'm not necessarily meaning it easier, I'm just saying is it more straightforward for the department to basically be able to address these requests and as part of that going to be meeting certain criteria and that certain criteria will it potentially filter out a lot?

Thank you for the question, and yes, this zoning district will be extremely helpful for the department to implement correct zoning, clear zoning, because heavily conditioned zoning, a lot can happen throughout the years. We've seen a lot of issues with it administratively or just in general public confusion over what Zoning district means and zoning classification does matter I bet you most people thought that apartment district could only be long-term rental and that wasn't the case and so this is that further effort of clarification and really, you know Transparent zoning for everyone to understand what these properties can do that they can't expand And that they have the correct zoning to conduct the lawful use Thank you, that's all my questions for now Thank You member Paulton

Thank you. My question, first question would be for planning. Are you aware of any Minnetonka properties, A1, A2, that are non-conforming right now in terms of the minimum lot size, 10,000 square feet, maximum building height, 35 in A1, 60 in A2? And if there are Minotaur properties that are existing non-conforming in A1, A2, it doesn't automatically be able to go into H3, H4 because they would be non-conforming. Is that your understanding?

Thank you. First question is, I'm not sure we're aware specifically of properties that are maybe non-conforming, but considering that many of these properties were built, like many of them were built in the 60s and 70s, and code has changed over the time, there definitely could be some that are non-conforming. But just because they're nonconforming, moving in the H3, H4, they just still will retain their nonconformity because they are still not meeting that same setback. If we move the same development standards over and the same uses over, they will just still remain as nonconforming. So if they wanted to rebuild or are significantly damaged and want to rebuild, they have to comply with our nonconforming ordinance, which would actually bring them into conformance with the code. So does that help answer that question?

So the whole reason that I'm for H3, H4 is because, say, You have an A2 building that's on a 10,000 square foot lot, that's the minimum size lot, and say the height is like 50 feet, it wouldn't clearly fit into H1. Maybe their floor area ratio is 80%, still wouldn't clearly fit into H1. Minimum lot width is 70, that doesn't, fit in any of H1, HM, H2. And then the max lot coverage is 35%. So that would only fit into H2. But it doesn't align. And so the reason why I'm for it is because I don't the nonconformity is a problem with me that we're gonna take this huge swath of things that are nonconforming and shove them in like a square peg into a round hole. That's kind of my problem with not doing H3, H4. And so I don't wanna continue on a nonconformity. So it's not clear to me that if an A1 or A2 is nonconforming that it would automatically be sliding to H3, H4.

Thank you for those comments, and yes, that would be an issue to continue a nonconformity in that matter, but it is our understanding that the existing properties are in conformance and do fit into these zoning categories, and so we wouldn't be perpetuating that issue.

Oh, okay, okay. And then, Chair, I just had a clarification for you, I think, for all of us. Yes. Are we working off of the bill Member Cook proposed or the recommendation that the Planning Department added to the bill when the Planning Commission took it up? And if they could repeat that, because I didn't... Sure.

I think, one, it was in their slide. For right now, it's just Bill 88. Without their recommendation. Without their recommendation, because that's what was discussed. And then if you wanted to make that recommendation, if anybody wanted to support their changes, then we can discuss that on the floor. It was a little bit difficult because we didn't have recommendations from the Planning Commission, so we just went, we started from scratch.

We had recommendations but it was not to do that.

Yes, it's not to do what we're doing so I figured we start from scratch and then we can hear what their proposal is and discuss that again because that wasn't necessarily something we discussed previously so I wanted to have that conversation fresh.

And I would imagine we could tweak their proposal to address what Member Rollins-Fernandez was saying about creating more. if we take their proposal, whatever it was, I don't remember the exact wording, but we don't, if you weren't doing TVR as of now, I wouldn't want them to go and do it in the future. And I guess, if this had been a non-conforming usage and they stopped doing it for a year, then they couldn't go back and pick it up, but because it was codified, that's why. Okay, I used up way over my time, so I'll stop talking now.

Okay, and then we can discuss that, the recommendations, we can pull it back up on the screen when we start voting. Okay, Member Sugimura. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So I wanted to revisit the 7,100 minotaur list and the additional 1,700 that's not on the list. Can you explain that again? So what will happen... Can these 1,700 homeowners or landowners, whatever units, can decide that they want to be part of H3H4?

They need to meet the criteria, and so they cannot have conducted the use today, for instance, and signed up for H3H4. They would not meet the criteria, even if they were built prior to 1989.

Okay, so is there a deadline that they can or cannot? Yes.

Yes, and that's the exact criteria that's currently listed in our apartment district. So our apartment district right now says, hey, you can operate TVR use in the apartment district provided you meet this certain criteria. One of the criteria is that your structure had to be built or permitted prior to 1989. Another one is that the translocation rents use was legally conducted in any lawfully existing dwelling unit within the building or structures prior to September 24th, 2020. So they must prove that as well. And so provided that you meet this criteria, and any of those other 1700 units, if they meet this criteria, then yes, they could request. So those are the kind of unknown ones that we're not aware of.

Interesting. So the TIG, which... took whatever recommended units that came with the bill, you're saying that in addition to whatever was in the bill, this may then qualify or no?

What the TIG looked at was basically the minotaurial list and those units that are on the minotaurial list. Those units that we are aware of that we know are in the apartment district and for the most part we believe meet this criteria. So that's what the TIG used as their base. There may be some additional units, is what I'm indicating, that we don't know of that may qualify as the same criteria. Go ahead.

Thank you. So how do they get approved? So let's say I'm one of them that are part of the 1700, and I think that I should be part of this and eligible for H3, H4. I approve it. I meet all your criteria. Then how does that happen?

So they would need to get approval just like any of these properties. They need approval of a change in zoning and possibly a community plan amendment, most likely a community plan amendment as well. So that can be either initiated by the council or it could be initiated by the property owner itself. And they would have to get approval of that. That change in zoning and community plan amendment has to go before the respective planning commission and then approved eventually by the council.

But before we go too far, we're not talking about a change in zoning today.

Okay.

Okay. just the new potential category of zoning. Okay, yeah.

Thanks for that clarification. So then people, testifiers were talking about litigation and can we talk about that? Because it came up in discussion.

You can ask your question, sure. If we have to go into executive session, I'm gonna have to take a recess and find some notes to do so, but please feel free to ask and then we can figure that out.

Okay. We may or may not. I just want to know if we still have litigation because it haven't heard.

Yes, but not as it relates to H3 and H4. Okay. So I mean, I'm not the lawyer, but the answer is yes, but not as it relates to this bill in front of us today. Yeah. Do you want to confirm?

I'm not actively involved in the litigation side.

I think you were right the first time, Chair. This is not on the agenda.

This is part of discussion. I was just asking. No, it's not. Based upon what the testifiers asked. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Lee, followed by members Sinensi.

Thank you, just wanted to ask Deputy Director Analilis, you talked about the additional 1,700 units that weren't considered. So can you repeat again, and you mentioned one of them, your colleague there mentioned one of them was Kihei Villas. Yeah, that was a 24, that is a 24 unit condominium and I should know because I was the manager over there when I first got married. Yeah, those were the days when if four cars went by in one hour, that was busy in Kihei, really bad. Anyway, okay, getting back to the 1700 units. What did you say, again, how these are gonna be handled? Do you just expect people to know to apply for the correct zoning?

Thank you, Chair. And essentially what is very difficult in land use planning in general is if you don't know your rights, you may not have any in a way. And so the department does not anticipate doing outreach to these apartments to ask them if they would like to apply for H3 and H4. And so if they would like to avail themselves of a use that they were lawfully conducting prior to 2020, then that seems reasonable that they would be aware enough to come to us for a change in zoning to continue said use.

Okay, so maybe not outreach, but then enforcement?

So if they are, that's exactly, we'll take that example. So if you were lawfully built prior to 1989, you were conducting the use prior to 2020, and we discover one of your ads online, then we would send you a notice of warning, indicating that, hey, we don't have you on our books as being allowed to do this, and they would be given the opportunity to prove that they were lawfully conducting and met all of the criteria.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Member Sinensi.

Thank you, Chair. Just for clarity, Deputy Lillis, so H3 and H4 is just being created for the apartment one and apartment two, no other structures, just the structures that are in this zoning, correct?

In this zoning district, correct. The only properties that would be applicable or able to apply would have to have A1 and A2, yes.

Okay, and you mentioned non-conforming. They would all be non-conforming. Should they be applied for this new up-zoning?

Can you explain that? I think the discussion regarding non-conformity is that some of these properties may be non-conforming, for example, to building height or setbacks, not meeting them because maybe at the time when they were permitted, they met those setbacks, but now the code has changed and they do not. moving into H3, H4 doesn't affect their nonconformity. They would still remain as nonconforming because the idea is to transfer the same development standards from the A1, A2 to the H3, H4. So if they're in H3, H4, they're still nonconforming, right? They're still nonconforming to whatever the building height and setbacks are. So they retain their nonconformity. It's just based on their nonconformity to setbacks.

Okay, and Mr. Post, what would be the options for the apartment, in apartment one and part two to up zone to H3 and H4.

In order to do that, in order to go into the H3 or H4, you need to meet that certain criteria that's already in the A1, A2 that allowed you to do transit vacation rental use. So in our existing A1 and A2 zones right now today, prior to Bill 9, you were allowed to do TVR if you met certain criteria. So as long as you meet that criteria, then you can go into the H3, H4, and you were in either the A1 or A2. So if you meet that criteria, that means you can continue doing translocation rental use.

Okay, but they are not zoned H3 and H4 just yet. So there would be... Upcoming legislation, they could move, they could apply for it through the planning commission. They could be supported with council legislation. Those are some of the steps to get to move into this new zoning.

Sorry to interrupt you. That is correct. Not only do you have to meet that criteria to go in the H3, H4, but you also have to get a change in zoning and a community plan amendment in order to do that. And those are public hearing items that have to go before the respective planning commission has to approve that as well as the council has to approve that. So that's the final step they would have to do. Okay. Thank you.

I want to call on Member Johnson to see if he has any questions. I have questions, but I'm going to hold and make sure all the members get to ask first.

Thank you, Chair. I guess my question would be for you today. Sure. Do you plan action today or are you open to deferring this item?

I would like to take action on it today.

Okay. You know, I want in August and July of 2024, and I visited every property on the Minnetonka list. It took me that long to check them all out. Because I wasn't on the take. And to have this discussion of not ever seeing these places or just driving by these places, I wanted to see them. And I think that is something this council should, I suggest you should do as well. Folks that live in West Maui and South Maui, you guys know your district, of course. But it's important for us to know exactly what these properties, what they look like and what they function, just like what Lionel Strong was saying. For me, H3H4 reminds me of a bit of a carve-out, right? And if we're going to do a carve-out, I would prefer a scalpel and not a hatchet. That's me. And H3H4, the beginning word is hotel. And I remember as I was one of the votes to have a hotel moratorium, because I don't think these islands need more hotel rooms. So I think for me trying to find some kind of compromise where we if there is that's function like a hotel union members, I get that. But the list is way longer than that. that's just uh my concerns today and i understand what you're saying chair you want action today but i would strongly urge our members and i would also strongly urge our department of housing to jump in the ocs man with us and drive around and look at these units and maybe the county could be sincere in purchasing up homes with willing buyers units with willing buyers and then we have increasing our affordable housing stock. That's what I would prefer the course of action, but I might be the only person, or I don't know. I just think the idea of purchasing the whole buildings, and then now how long does it take? And you guys remember the presentation from the administration, how long does it take to get new units, new buildings online? It's our grandkids that will be benefiting from this. So it's just something that we, you know, I want to end it there, but that's really how I feel, Chair, and I appreciate you giving me this time to speak. Thank you.

Of course. Thank you, Member Johnson. I did at least more South Maui and some of West Maui take a drive and look at all of this, and I think to your point, when and if we move properties to this zoning category, it would be beneficial for people to do that homework. I don't know if we'll be able to organize field trips, but even though I like a good field trip, I did go and look at some, and we had some discussion about some in particular that kind of meet the criteria that we were discussing. But thank you very much. I wanted to make sure you had the opportunity to say your piece and ask questions. You're not here in person, so thanks. I'm gonna ask a couple questions if you folks don't mind. At least try to address some of the concerns we heard in testimony. For, I guess, planning, because finance is in here, maybe even Corp Council, but those of us on the TIG, we had this conversation quite at length, so I'm going to try to state the question so that we can answer it. And even if it may be a statement, because I don't know how to ask sometimes questions. Even if we moved these H1 and, I'm sorry, A1 and A2 properties into H3 and H4, the units are billed individually. So even if there is an owner occupied space in the unit, they will not be affected by taxes with this lateral move. Can you please confirm?

Yes, that is our understanding that individuals that would qualify for a long-term rate or classification or homeowner rate category would still be able to get that classification and that lower tax rate typically.

Right. Unlike the large hotels that are owned by a singular category, entity, these are individually owned units and therefore billed separately. I think that's really important. That's a question I asked in TIG and I heard somebody asked that today and I think that's important to recognize that even though this is a lateral move to a hotel zoning, because these are right now operating as hotels, so they're going to be appropriately zoned as hotels, their taxes won't be affected. What else did I hear? We spent a lot of time right now talking about existing non-conforming as they relate to the structures. But I find this a very interesting conversation because in my head, the Minnetonka list codified existing non-conforming. So I know you read your updates to Title 19 to remember Rollins-Fernandez. So this is somewhat of a cleanup in my head, but I understand that people don't necessarily feel that way. when we had a time where we would either issue a variance or it was just an allowed use in apartment building and that was their primary use, maybe not for everyone, but that was some people's primary uses. And so what we had was existing non-conforming and by doing a lateral move to move them into a hotel, do you think that this is still an existing non-conforming use and not necessarily just structure?

I think that this would be codifying that the use can be relied upon in perpetuity to the degree that zoning can allow something to continue and change on the future. But this gives those owners assurance that they won't be phased out because of ordinance 5 9 0 9 and there may be nonconforming use is being codified as a allowable use.

Okay. I have more questions, but if anybody else has more questions, please feel free to raise your hand. I'll go to Member Cook and then Chair Lee.

Thank you. So providing H3 and H4 passes and becomes a new zoning category, the next step for people who want to continue to have a TBR would have to apply, either a council initiated or a owner initiated. Could you, kind of, it's a thing, I need people to, I'd like you to have a thumbnail sketch. I've heard, Avalanche different words that indicate that like this is going to open the floodgate that all of a sudden the people that are now on a three to five year clock are going to be like we do this and it's like well that just erased what happened. Could you kind of clarify the process because I believe it's kind of intense still correct.

Yes, so this bill 88 does not create any sort of expedited pathway forward for any property to receive a change in zoning. And it is up to council, the applicant, or the planning department to initiate that zoning change. And so people would be able to do that on their own basis. And then there are certain other benefits to having it council initiated. But that would be the next step. Apologies if I missed your question.

I think, no you are, but if someone is gonna come, whether it be council-initiated or planning department-initiated or owner-initiated, there is a list of criterias that they have to do. I mean, could you kind of thumbnail sketch, just because it's not an easy process.

Correct. The change in zoning application process is outlined in Title 19, and it is very robust. And the requirements have to do with public notification of their neighbors, a robust list of studies and analysis that we would request from them. Whereas if it's council-initiated, we planning receive that resolution. and work with the, we try to get in touch with the applicant and get as much information as we can from them, but we're on that shot clock to provide you folks back with our report and analysis from the relevant commission.

Okay, and I guess maybe for chair, but I believe that the TIG's recommendation for exhibit two was that there's a list of criteria to qualify, so if council was initiated, there's still a list of things that they have to, like their zone, their deeds, surveys, tax records, all of this data to get them to qualify to be sponsored.

Yes, so that criteria could be further established in Bill 88 as it's before you today. So, you know, there's definitely a few suggestions made in the testimony. But in terms of what council would ultimately put forward in terms of their recommendation would ultimately be under your purview. But the planning department would be in charge then of making sure that all those criteria are actually hit. And so those can be further outlined in Bill 88, or could just be relied upon for Council's initiation.

Was that the bell? Okay.

I'm gonna go to Chair Lee, and then I see Member Paul.

Deputy Director, did your department approve of the TIGS recommendations?

The department was recommending approval of the TIG's recommendation to do the H3H4 to the Planning Commission, so the department supports that TIG recommendation. Just the H3H4, we have not evaluated at all their recommendation two, which would be the Exhibit Two list or those list of properties. We haven't evaluated that at all. Just today, the H3H4, we recommended approval of that.

Oh, I was under the impression that your department helped them create that list on Exhibit Two.

I know the department made itself available to the TIG to answer any questions that the TIG may have, but we did not create that list.

Okay, so you don't take any particular stance on whether those, whether the next step, provided this is created, this H3H4 is created, that the next step of CIZ, change in zoning, be done individually or can it still be done in mass?

It can be done in mass. It's a policy question for the council on whether or not you want to initiate a code amendment and change in zoning and a community plan amendment for whichever properties the council desires, so that's how they would be done.

Okay, because it's still possible. When I spoke to your previous planning director, I asked how many change in zonings do you process a year? She said about four or five. We're talking thousands here, yeah? So until the end of time, you're talking about if we do it one by one, right?

property-based, so it would be a process, a long process, yes.

Yeah, okay, and then the other thing is usually the units are taxed highest and best use. So that would be, they would have to individually get exemptions or applications into the finance department. Because the buildings have the same TMK, right?

Yes.

Right.

Yes, they would have to get exemptions for owner-occupied or long-term rental. Yes, currently as they do today.

I believe that the individual condo owners have their own TMK, and there is a master TMK for the entire parcel.

Oh, they have individual. Okay. Correct. All right, thank you.

Thank you, Chair Lee. Member Palten?

Um, thank you. I just wanted to clarify a couple of the testifiers. Um, one asked what's wrong with the H1 H2 zoning and then another said they don't think that any of the Minnetonka properties would fit into the H1 H2 zoning. So there's, is it true? There's currently three hotels zonings, H1, HM and H2. So H1 minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet, HM is 15,000, and H2 is 20,000, whereas both A1 and A2 minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Max building height for H1 is 35, which aligns with A1, but there's nothing that aligns with A2, which is 60 feet, unless you go HM is 90 feet, H2 is 160 feet. the max floor to area ratio for H1 is 50%, HM is 100%, and H2 is 150%, but A1 is 40% for more than three acres, or 50% for lots less than three acres, whereas A2 is 90%. And like minimum lot width for H1 is 75, HM is 85, H2 is 100 whereas A1 and A2 are both 70. Maximum lot coverage for H1 is 25%. HM is 30%. H2 is 35% whereas A1 is 25% and A2 is 35%. And then you go into like front, rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks. And so like none of the A1 would fit squarely into any of those three categories. And to me that is the problem and that's not even going into additional accessory uses. This is just where it fits. And I think that's why Mr. Crowley was saying that none of the A1, A2, on that criteria of just the building alone or the lot size or the setbacks meets H1, HM or H2. And I just wanted to hear what your thoughts are on that.

We haven't done a extensive analysis into that but that is our general assumption from looking at even just briefly the properties that they don't fit into the hotel district and that is why the department's recommendation from a development standards aspect and so that's why the department would recommend against further conflating existing zoning districts by placing heavy conditions on them to not allow further uses, not allow the exact zoning setbacks that they have in the apartment district so that one for one is the cleanest most simplest transparent way to do zoning that we could think of and we didn't want to quote unquote even be lazy and just you know make a bunch of conditions that we want to call a duck a duck like like everyone has been saying today so that's part of that effort

Just for anyone watching, I made this quick and dirty thing and then Charlie is like, did you make one for all of us? And then I looked at the bill. I think it's on page five of the bill where it shows all of that stuff. So if anybody didn't write down all the things I said, it starts on page five of the bill, just the standards and stuff like that. But I made mine from the code. existing code.

Thank you, Member Palten. You have any other, or your bell rang. Do you have anything else? My bell rang. If not, okay.

I think that was, I mean, I hope that addresses Mr. Gregg, I don't know how to say his last name very well, question. No, the other one. Rilski, he was like, what's the problem with H1, H2? That's what I was trying to answer. And to me, that's the problem, is it doesn't fit. And I'm not a process, like, have to have it fit, but I guess I'm getting into discussion and I'll just save it. Thank you.

Member Rollins-Fernandez, go ahead.

Mahalo Chair. And so that was a line of questions that I was asking before we took our lunch break. Where did the A1, A2 numbers come from? What happens if, so the planning department has not done an analysis to see if all the properties on A1, A2 that could qualify to be rezoned H3, H4 would fit within the design standards or the development standards of a maximum building height because those would need to be taken on a case-by-case, no one's... Have you even verified the list?

Yeah, as I mentioned before, it's really basically impossible to determine whether or not all the apartment buildings meet the existing standards in the A1, A2. And it's just these existing standards in A1, A2 that are moving to the H3, H4. So we're not coming up with new standards. They're the exact same standards that were in the A1 and A2. Those standards in the A1 and A2 were actually, I did look at that, I think, to answer your question. Back in actually in the 1960s, for example, in the apartment district, there was actually a 50-foot building height requirement in the 60s. That changed over time to 35 feet we have today. I couldn't tell you exactly when that changed, but my guess is there were buildings that were probably created in the 60s in the apartment district that might be 50 feet. They're subsequently nonconforming. But that's okay. They'll be nonconforming in the H3, H4 as well if that's adopted. So the same standards in A1, A2 are just being replicated in the H3, H4.

So you think that's where the 60 max building height may have come from if like initially the apartment zone allowed for a 55 foot height?

It could have been, I'm sorry to interrupt you. It could have been, back then in 1966, I think I'm looking at, is there was only one apartment zoning district and not A1 and A2. That was subsequently changed later. And that one department district had a 50 foot. So now we have A1, A2 is a 35 foot and a 60 foot. So things changed over time. But what we have being proposed today in this bill replicates exactly what's in the A1, A2 today.

Right, I understand that. But I also heard that there has not been an analysis on all the properties. So what happens if a property wants to rezone to, H3, H4 are already non-conforming in apartment zone. So in apartment zone, they're already non-conforming. They may exceed the minimum lot width or maximum building height or one of those things.

Are you asking them or the lawyer?

Well, they're advocating for properties to fit into the square hole. So if we're trying to make them all like comply.

I thought they already said it could, like the non-conforming could continue as existing non-conforming, but we already heard that.

But I thought that was one of the arguments for creating H3H4 and not doing H1H2 is because we wanted to move away from non-conforming.

I think going into the H1 or H2, you're creating possibly more nonconformities because the development standards don't match. You see what I'm saying? So in the A1, for example, if we had a building in the A1 district that is 40 feet tall, that would be existing nonconforming to its existing 35 foot height. Moving that into now the H3 designation, which still would retain the 35 foot height limit, it just retains that nonconformity. And so if that building ever gets rebuilt, they have to meet our nonconforming standards, which would then require that building to be lowered and a new building built to the 35 feet. That's all that happens with the nonconformity. But by moving it to the, trying to figure out or trying to put it into either the H1 or H2, we have other building heights that are different. And so trying to fit that into one of the H1s, well, the H1, H1 has a 30-foot building height, so it might meet that standard. So we would probably want to put that property into an H1 if we were going down that direction. But it doesn't meet the H2, which has a 160-foot building height, or the HM, which has a 90-foot building height. So by doing the H3, H4, it's kind of the cleanest way to continue that nonconformity into what they're getting nothing more than what they had today. So they're retaining their same nonconformity at 35 feet.

I understand what you are explaining. One of the reasons to not do H1, H2, you're saying, is because of nonconformity, and that would still exist in H3, H4. So I just... it kinda undercuts that argument, I guess. Because even below that, the percentages and all that, for maximum lot coverage, maximum floor area ratio, et cetera, it doesn't clean it up like you're saying it would. Nonconformity would still exist.

That's correct, but let's take, maybe provide another example. In the A2 and the same under the H4, if you look at that table on page six, you have a building height of 60 feet. And so for a property that has a, and so it has currently a building height at 60 feet.

So the question then becomes- Do H1, H3, because they're more alike.

Exactly. H1, H3 is kind of like the example I just mentioned. It would, it would actually be the same building height. So you're right, an H1 possibly could work the same for an H3. You are correct there.

So it's mostly with the H4 and H2 and HM.

That is true. And it's also the land uses, which I think are actually, to me, more of the significant component of the wide variety of land uses that are allowed in the H-1, H-2, H-8.

Which could be limited if the conditional use was added to that change in zone.

There could be a conditional permit and adding conditions that restrict that, that is correct. But that's more of the concern than we have.

Okay, mahalo, Mr. Post. Mahalo, Chair.

Yeah, of course. Member Sinensi.

Thank you, chair. Uh, one of the, um, testifiers concerns was actually being able to expand, um, the property, uh, once they move to H3 and H4, should they move to H3 and H4? Um, does it allow them to expand? their properties?

Yeah. So subsection G says that the number of room or units allowed for transit vacation rental use may not increase beyond those allowed for such use as of January 7th, 2022. Existing transit vacation rentals may be reconstructed, renovated, or expanded if no new rooms or transit vacation rental units are added. So they would not be able to add room or units, no. Their development standards would essentially be what they have today, just moving them over. So they couldn't make new transit vacation rental units with H3 and H4.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. And then should the council consider, council initiated properties to rezone and to address the community plans? would they still be able to, again, expand or would we see kind of like a construction boom if we're just changing the community plans?

No, we don't anticipate any sort of construction boom or a higher intensification of uses if properties were moved into H3 and H4.

Okay, all right. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. The use should remain the same. what is existing will remain if they meet the qualifications to change zoning, and if not, then those who are doing TBRs in the apartment zone will no longer be able to do so, but those who eventually, when we do change, will continue their use. But this provides, as we all said, the mechanism to hopefully cleanly move into a different type of apartment. I mean, I'm sorry, hotel use. Member Paulton, you have your hand up again. Go ahead, please.

Thanks. I wanted to ask the same question that we were asking to them, to the lawyers, either Ms. Nakata or Mr. Nunokawa. If there is an A1 or A2 non-conforming, like by the building standards, would it then be easily able to change its zoning to an H3, H4, and thus continue its nonconformity? Or how would that occur?

Thank you for the question. It's hard to say without knowing the nonconformity. The specifics. Yeah. generally if it hit the other components it probably would be able to move over um relatively the same the the thing with the non-conformity in if it was non-conforming in h3 h4 uh the theory behind it based on what i know of um the intent is that the non-conformity would be that it was in excess of the allowed height or boundaries, and so it would be restricted by its nonconformity. It couldn't expand beyond that, rather than if you switched it into the current zoning designations, H1, H2, it might be smaller in footprint than what's allowed, which could allow for expansion. And that was one of the considerations. Department, please correct me if I'm misstating anything.

That's correct. And then like sometimes in nonconforming uses, if they want to make improvements, it's difficult until they come into conformity. But if your nonconformity is like your side yard setback or your floor area ratio or your max lot coverage, your minimum lot width, How does that play into it? You're not gonna, like say you wanna fix your roof and you can't change your floor area ratio without like say tearing down what you got or how does that work?

Thanks for the question. I'm not the best resource for that question. Who do you think would be the best resource? Public Works would probably be able to answer better because that has to do with approval of permits when you have a nonconformity. So I'm not exactly sure how they process that, but they should be able to answer that question better than I can. Okay.

Planning, would you mind taking a stab at that question too, please?

Typically, a nonconforming structure, so a nonconforming section within Title 19, the zoning code, would allow you to retain those. And as long as you're not doing anything that exacerbates the nonconformity. So you can retain your setback, but you can't build up into that same setback that's nonconforming. You wouldn't be able to do that. Changing your roof, yes. So sometimes there's, and I'll have to go back to the nonconforming section, whether or not there's a limitation on how much you can do. Usually it's a 50% rule. I have to go back in that. So as long as you're not, basically recreating a new structure, you can retain your nonconformity and make improvements.

Sorry, follow up? Go ahead, please. This might have been a silly question in 2022, but if the entirety of the building burnt down and it was a nonconforming existing, they would have to rebuild it to be conforming.

That's correct.

Okay. Or any other thing like type tidal wave hurricane? Yeah. Okay.

Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions? Member Rollins Fernandez.

Sorry. How many properties do you think are on the Minnetonka list and not? Not units. I know we talked about there being 7,000 plus units and potentially another 1,700 units not on the list. But as far as like the parcels.

There's actually 104 projects, so to speak. 10 of those are one to two units, believe it or not, that are in the apartment district, just one to two units. So really 94 projects are multiple units, 94.

Okay, I think, are those the ones that are like houses? In testimony from Ms. Rego, we received a list of some of them that are either like houses or just like a duplex or something. I think they called it single ownership. Single owner properties. I wasn't sure if that's what the planning department called it.

Some of the single owner properties have like up to 10 units, I think.

Yeah, but some of them are just like one single family dwelling.

Yeah, there's a couple ones in Tuzis.

Yeah. Okay, so 96. 96. 94. 94, okay. All right, I just wanted to clarify the record that it wouldn't be thousands of change in zonings that you would take up. It would potentially be 94 and that's on the list. That's not including the 1700 out in the wild.

That's correct, that's on the Minnetonka list.

Okay, mahalo, Mr. Post, mahalo, Chair.

Yes, 94 if all converted, which I don't think that's what we're going to do. Oh, is her camera not on? Oh, now it is.

My internet has been kind of...

Shaky. Just like everyone's. Just FYI, Member Johnson, we heard everything you said, but it was a little shaky. At least now on my computer, he's not moving, but I see he's moving there. Chair Lee has had the same motion on my computer. She hasn't moved in a while, even though on that one it's moved. So just FYI, it's a little rocky.

You're moving.

I see you in real life just on my camera.

You're not frozen in real life. You're doing this. You're not frozen in real life.

Go ahead, Chair Lee.

So I wondered what you meant about, but we're not gonna do all of them. What do you mean by that?

Oh, to Member Rollins-Fernandez's point, there are 94 properties that are Bill 9 affected on the Minnetonka list, which of course we're not necessarily discussing all 94 properties now, but in the future. 104. Yeah, 104, besides the 10 onesies, twosies. In the future, we would have the opportunity, if we so choose to do so, which I probably will, just FYI, to rezone those properties. But my intention, and I don't think the TIG's intention, was to rezone all 94 of those ones that are Bill 9 affected, of 94 of those properties that are Bill 9 affected.

But you seem to have over half, right? 4,500, 4,500?

Yep, ish, ish, yeah, for various reasons. But again, they're not all, they're not all the Bill 9 affected properties.

They're not all, okay.

They're not all of them, right? We have a significant portion, but not all 94 properties, yes.

Right, right, a significant, yeah, because it's three-fourths, almost.

Almost, but again, we did include the onesies, twosies, and again, I don't wanna get ahead of myself, because that's not what's in front of us now, and some other criteria, but we will talk about that when we talk about that. Go ahead, Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. So I guess for planning, the concept of this process, either with H3, H4, phase one, this doesn't create any more hotel units. It's not creating anything. It's enabling us to have another zoning category.

Correct, it wouldn't create any new ones, but the ones that are slated for phase out, if they are selected and approved by council to continue the use, they would continue on, so it wouldn't be creating any new one.

So it's a path. Chair, I just want to personally keep focusing on that, that creating H3, H4 is part of the cleanup from the disconnect of all of this, and... It doesn't do anything other than enable the conversation to be more logical and more structured. Conditions can be put, will be put on when the different properties are being looked at, when the properties are being discussed. Community plan changes. there is a long list of issues that need to be addressed that I'm hopeful that we collectively as the entire community can address the concerns, the hopes, and move forward to end up at the end of this with a a clear, comprehensive planning department, public works, tax office, realtors, everybody have a better understanding of what's allowed and what is. I wanna lobby for a minute, okay. I wanna lobby for a minute. My district has a lot of these units and I have gone and visit with a lot of units, and I've talked with employees, and I've talked with business owners in the proximity, and I'm just asking people to sort of pause in their judgment as far as like, Is it going to make housing? Is it affordable? Is it desirable? All of those things to me I'm hoping are a real more granular assessment instead of just this theory because it's impacting our community a lot, our tax base to be able to do infrastructure and afford housing and manage all the different categories that we fund with property taxes. So anyway, I'm hoping that the H3, H4 issue that we're addressing today, that's the focus. I know that's on the agenda, but hopefully people aren't, anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Does anybody else have any other questions? If not, I'm gonna take a quick recess but I wanna make sure I've exhausted everyone's discussion. Go ahead, Member Palten.

Just the one about their recommendation.

That's what I was gonna take a recess for so that they could kinda get that to us in writing and then when we come back, maybe we could have that in front of us but I wanted to make sure that we've exhausted everyone's questions. Chair Lee, did you have anything else you wanted to say?

Who's they?

Which one? Oh, planning. Planning in the beginning of their meeting. I'm sorry, you weren't here. I should say that, my bad. In the beginning of the meeting, they did have some recommendations for some language change that we didn't include initially, and so I wanted to have planning, I should have said planning instead of they, printed up so we could have a hard copy to distribute when we come back in and we can use that as discussion.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other discussion before we take a quick recess? Any other questions? Go ahead, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. Of course. I have to look through my notes. But if I have additional questions when we get back, I can ask my questions, yeah?

Yes, of course, for sure. We have a hard out at five-ish. So we do have a little bit, but Member Senanze has a doctor's appointment, I think, Member Palta needs to go, Member Sugimura needs to go, so we're gonna, it's just gonna be us.

Okay, I'm supportive of that. I have a flight at 7.45. Okay, great. If I could get home earlier, that would be even better.

That would be great.

But when we were talking about the 94, projects that are more the complexes. Okay, yeah. You said that your intention right now isn't to rezone all 94, but eventually?

No.

Okay.

No. That was my point. I'm sorry. I didn't want to confuse anybody. That's definitely not what we're talking about now. But because we were talking about that, I think people assume all of them are gonna move over, and that's just what I was trying to say. That's not my intention, is to move all of them over, even though that's not what we're talking about today.

Right, I just wanted to clarify that.

Yes, thank you for making that very clear. It's been a long month and a half.

Okay, I separate taking a recess now. I'll also ask the department for the, where to include the recommendation from the Molokai Planning Commission. I have a couple ideas that I can consult with you folks that if this is going to pass, I just wanna be prepared to have an amendment to exclude Molokai, which was the request from the Molokai Planning Commission.

Yep, I was gonna take a recess until about three. Does that work for you? Yeah. Okay, then it is 2.47 right now and we're gonna take a recess to reconvene at three. See you back at three, folks. Good afternoon, gang. It is 3.09 p.m., and will the HLU meeting please reconvene? Thank you. We have HLU staff passing out hard copies of planning department's recommendation, but before we do that, I am going to make sure... that we don't have any other discussion to add before I move on to my recommendation. But I'll give OCS staff a second. Thank you. Does anybody have any other discussion? Can I also confirm that we emailed it over to Member Johnson? Member Johnson, just making sure you got, not yet? Okay. We just hit, they just hit send. You might wanna refresh it and then it'll magically appear, hopefully. But.

Okay, we got it, thank you so much.

Okay, good, good, good. Any other discussion before I move on? Okay, thank you so much. Members, seeing no further discussion, I will entertain a motion to recommend passage of Bill 88-2026 on first reading, incorporating any non-substantive revisions.

So moved. Second.

Thank you. I have a motion made by Member Cook and a second by Chair Lee. We do have a couple recommendations to discuss as well. Amendments. Member Paulton?

I'd like to move to amend the bill as per the department's recommendation.

Oh, do you want me to read it? Sure, we'll go into that. So I have a motion by Member Palten and a second by Member Sugimura to incorporate Planning Department's recommended changes. And yes, for discussion, you're welcome to read it.

Sure, so this recommendation is to clarify that only those properties that met the criteria to operate TVR use in the apartment districts are permitted in the H3 and H4 districts. So as follows, adding a B, the following uses are permitted in the H3 and H4 districts. One, any use permitted in residential and apartment districts. Two, transient vacation rentals in buildings and structures meeting all of the following criteria. A, the building or structure received a building permit, special management area units permit, or planned development approval that was lawfully issued by and was valid or is otherwise confirmed to have been lawfully existing on April 20th, 1989. B, transient vacation rental use was legally conducted in any lawfully existing dwelling unit within the building or structure prior to September 24th, 2020, as determined by real property tax class or payment of general excise tax and transient accommodation tax. C, the number of rooms or units allowed for transient vacation rental use may not increase beyond those allowed for such use as of January 7th, 2022. Existing transient vacation rentals may be reconstructed, renovated, or expanded if no new rooms or transient vacation rental units are added. D, the property owner or operator holds general excise tax and transient accommodation tax licenses and is current in payment of state and county taxes, fines, or penalties assessed in relation to the transient vacation rental. and I wanted to add an E to address the 1700 that are floating out there to say that the property must have, be doing existing transient vacation rentals as of the time of this bill passing. So that if they weren't doing it, it's not like you can pick it up from somewhere else. And then, Minor change on page six of the ordinance. Side should read 10 feet for the portion of the building 35 feet or less in height and bracket out 20 and put 15 feet for the portion of the building taller than 35 feet.

Thank you. Did you want staff or planning department to wordsmith your condition E?

Sure.

Yeah. Okay. Legislative intent. Yes. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Okay, so B is TBR use was legally conducted prior to September 24, 2020. So for the new E that you're proposing, Member Poulton, how does that differ? I mean, besides for that being 2020 and this being 2026.

If it's not going on now, like they said they discovered one that 1700 floating on there, they won't be able to, they're not doing it right now. They can't do it future, so we're not creating.

Oh, B already prohibits them from qualifying. I mean, we can ask the department, but that was what I understood when we're asking questions.

How did that one pick it up? They established that they did meet the criteria but just didn't raise, they didn't notify the department prior to that date.

In 2020. So I guess the wordsmithing would be they would have had to have notified us by the time this bill passes or to be, yeah, legislative intent to be that they can't just pick it up

Something along the lines of, and we'll talk more internally, but something along the lines of notify the department and the department confirmed the allowed use by that date would be more ideal. By the date this bill passes.

That would be my legislative intent is to, what they said by the time this bill passes. They would have had to have notified the department and have the department confirm by the time this passes in order to pick up that use. So we're not creating more STR than currently exists legally. I'll yield.

OK. Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Mahalo Chair, so could that be added to be since it already, if they weren't conducting lawful? And then just add the confirmed with the planning department?

Just to solidify the language?

Yeah, of September 24, 2020.

I think at that stage, we might just be able to rely on the new language and no longer need the date of 2020 because if the department affirmed it prior to this ordinance passing, then we would just use the list that we have on record at this time or by the time the ordinance passes. But I think that it would be wise to give people the opportunity to inform us. They could have informed us at any time, of course.

Okay, so we're gonna add Member Paulton's suggested language, however we decide to say it, to item or letter B to confirm that we are operating on the existing list that we have been operating on. And the others, because we know the list isn't comprehensive and exhausted,

we'll need to reach out to you immediately or Powell, you know, on further, uh, deliberation with Mr. Post, um, you know, we'll recommend that we keep the date that's existed in terms of the September 24th, 2020 and that the planning department, sorry,

I put in at the end of subsection B with it, and the property must have notified the department prior to the date of passing of this ordinance.

Okay.

Thank you.

And or indicate the date of this ordinance would be preferable, actually.

Okay. Notified and the department confirmed.

And the department confirmed. That would be fine, yeah.

Okay. That's clean.

On the date of the ordinance passing.

Okay. Yes. And listing the date.

Okay. Any discussion? Member Cook and then Chair Lee.

Thank you. So just for clarification, what we're striving to do is not have any outliners piggyback on this and be able to change your zoning to H3 and H4. It seems like the criteria already A, B, C, D spells out and limits who would qualify. And I'm super supportive of that. I'm just saying, do we need to add anything to it? Or it's just like, if they're one of the 1,700, five of them, say, oh, well, they're kind of gonna recognize or not recognize that when they're applying for a, you know, a new zoning category. They're gonna have to come forward with all their information. It seems like this covers it. I also do not want people coming out of the woodwork and all of a sudden being able to capitalize on this and be that. We have a large number of these that we're striving to get from A1 to A2 into compliance. We're gonna filter a whole lot of those out that don't meet the criteria. the ones that do meet the criteria are gonna have the opportunity to go through the system? Does that satisfy the desire to insulate, not get the 1700 to be able to?

Yeah, I guess from the example that they gave where there's some potential Minnetonka properties out there and I'm not sure how that, what they said was Kihei Villas or something. I'm not sure how that meets the criteria because if they were paying short-term rental tax rates or TAT to the county, then we would know that they were operating as a Minnetonka property. But somehow, otherwise, they were able to pick it up. And I think what this bill is trying to do is clarify things. And I wanted to clarify, if they're not doing that use right now, they haven't been confirmed by the planning department to do that use right now, sorry, you missed the boat, because we're here trying to clarify things and you're not doing it right now. We're not trying to create or allow or have a loophole door open for people to say, hey, I'm an A1, A2 property. Hey, I was doing this. I was doing that. It's like, where have you been the last three years, you know, when we've been discussing it? Now is not the time to like convert to STR. Now is the time to create other housing or whatever.

Yeah. I'm in concurrence. Is part of the measuring of establishment is that they've been paying their taxes and they're on record?

Well, that's what B does say. No, wait, yeah. structured prior to September 24, 2020, as determined by real property tax class or payment of general excise tax and transient accommodation tax. So all of these criteria have to be met. So if they're not doing that, they shouldn't, just clarifying. We don't want people popping out of the woodwork that are not doing short-term rental lawfully to say, hey, what about me? Because we've been going at this for quite a while.

Did that answer your question, Member Cohen?

I know, so I wanted to ask planning. Having heard that, does this, Do we need to add anything or does this basically clarify the criteria?

Would you like to read what the language you suggested earlier to add into section B? That kind of just clarifies.

Yes, the additional language would be just adding it to the end and the property, sorry, the property must have notified, the property owner must have notified the department prior to the date of the ordinance. So I guess it's kind of a policy question because it's the question of there are properties, there may be properties out there that may have already met this criteria and may be operating in TVR that we just don't know about, right? that may want to switch to H3, H4. And they just don't know about it. I don't know why, but then what this would be doing would be, I assume, restricting them from doing that if they did not notify us prior to the adoption of this ordinance. So it does create kind of a threshold of like, hey, yeah, you were operating legally in A1, A2, but we're not going to let you go into H3, H4 because you did not notify the department. So it's kind of that policy question of how are we treating the additional 1,700 units, which I don't know how many are in there that may or may not be able to convert that are meeting this criteria, I don't know. And so it may allow some or not. It's really kind of a policy issue.

Member Cook?

Well, I agree. I mean, if someone's in the 1700, they're not on the miyatoya list, they've been doing it error in compliance. we want them to be H3 or H4. We don't want any more A1, A2 transification rentals, the kind of bottom line. And so, because that's cleaning it up. So if someone is A1 or A2 and they're quote, are not compliant, they need to change. And so we want them to be able to change, but they're gonna have to change by a certain date because a year from now, or at some point in time, they're gonna lose their right. Is that correct? In three years to five years, if somebody is doing that now, and they don't come forward, they're gonna lose that previous entitlement.

That's correct, they would not be able to change.

Can I add something real quick? I don't mean to, I feel like we've been going back and forth. We, the county, had sent out letters after Bill 9 to let the property owners know you're going to be Bill 9 affected. So... If there's a possibility, like Kihei Villas, which clearly they already flagged themselves for us to now have this discussion, if there's another property out there that's completely unaware of what we're doing, that we have been doing for the last, I don't know how long, I wish to be that oblivious.

Can you repeat that?

All I'm saying is that in the Kihei Villas instance, which is why we're having this discussion, they came to us and they're like, hey, we somehow were not on this list. As planning said in the very beginning of Bill 9 discussions, this list is probably not completely exhaustive. We probably have missed some. And I think... Throughout the year and a half that our lives have been consumed with this discussion, they should be well aware that they are gonna be Bill 9 affected and should have absolutely contacted us. And like Kihei Villas and like others already have. And we also sent out letters from finance to let people know that they're going to be Bill 9 affected. And so they should have contacted us. This, I don't have any issue with this language. because it does just solidify that we are going to work off what we have been working off of that list. Because then if not, this is just a never-ending discussion in my head. Member Johnson, and then I'll call on you, Member Rollins-Fernandez, if you have any discussion. I saw Member Sugimura. Member Johnson, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I want to respect everybody's time, but I have a 3.30, so I'll be jumping off the call, but I just wanted to inform you, thank you for allowing me to be excused.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Thank you, Member Johnson. Yes.

Chair, could staff just clarify, I think when Mr. Post read the language most recently, it didn't have the phrase about the department having to confirm the use. Is that part of the provision?

Yes, it should have been confirmed as well, thank you.

And this would be before the effective date of Bill 88 as opposed to Ordinance 5909, right?

That's correct.

Okay, so what staff has is adding on to the end of B, the property owner, and should it also say or operator or is it just owner?

It should be the owner.

Okay, the property owner must have notified the Department of the transient vacation rental use and the Department must have confirmed the use before the effective date of this ordinance.

Yeah, that's fine by the Department.

Okay, Member Sugimura. Thank you, so I support this. So the thought that I have for the Department is of the 1700 units and we all talk about the TIG's great report and work, right, that came up with this H3, H4, and that list, Exhibit Two. So are these 1,700 units, any of them are properties that are on the Exhibit Two list, or is it brand new?

No, they are not on the Exhibit Two list, because the Exhibit Two list was taken strictly from the Minnetonka list, so these 1,700 properties are not on the Minnetonka list.

So if they qualify based upon what this says, they can still proceed, but they will not be in the council initiated change of zoning that we've been talking about. So it's gonna be completely separate.

No, they would need to proceed and notify the department prior to the adoption of this bill. And so if they do not do that, then they're not allowed to move into the H3 or H4 district.

Right. but in order to get their change of zoning recognized in the next step, this is like step one, so next step, they wouldn't be included in the council-initiated change of zoning.

That's correct, and nor would they be included in a property owner request for change in zoning either. if this language is placed in, because this language would exclude them from being within the H3, H4, because they did not let the department know, and the department confirmed their use. So they would not be able to either do that either. So you're basically excluding the 1700 properties.

Except for that one that already came forward. Yes. Kihei Villas.

Kihei Villas. They're actually on the minotaurial list now, so they were added in.

2024 I think it was they were out of on there, okay You have any other questions, okay, is there any other discussion on the amendment? I know we have another amendment, but if you will allow let's do them one at a time, please Any other discussion on the amendment? member Rollins Fernandez Mahalo

And then to reconfirm one more time that if they were not operating as a TVR by January 7th, 2022, even if they meet the other criteria, they wouldn't qualify.

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay. Mahalo. Um, I will be supporting this amendment, um, but I will not be supporting the bill. Okay. Sounds good.

Then for this amendment, then we can just do a raise your hand vote. And then when we do the main motion, I will do a roll call for sure. So all those in favor of this amendment, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, you have seven eyes, no nose to excuse members, but Tongan and Johnson.

Thank you very much. Member Rollins Fernandez, did you have amendment as well? I do.

Mahalo. Yep. Okay. All right. On page four of Member Cook's bill, purpose and intent section 19.14.010. B. Oh, shucks. Member Johnson's not here. Okay. I move to... amend subsection B to read as follows. Hotel districts include the following, H1, HM, H2 Hotel, and this is the new section, and except the island of Molokai, H3 and H4. Second.

Thank you, I have a motion made by Member Rollins-Fernandez and a second by Chair Lee to add the language except for the island of Moloka'i on page four on the online version, page three on the printed version in section 1914.10, purpose and intent in letter B. Any other discussion? Go ahead, Member Rollins-Fernandez, please.

Mahalo, Chair, and this is the recommendation from the Molokai Planning Commission to exempt Molokai if this bill does pass. Not sure if the bill's gonna pass or not, but in case it does, putting the amendment in now. We also discussed the island of Lanai, including, but Member Johnson is not here right now. The Lanai Planning Commission did not request to be exempted, but there are no properties in the A1, A2 that operate as short-term rentals or TVRs on Lanai, so I guess it would be up to them. We can include them later if they'd like to be. It's just a zoning that, wouldn't exist there, but they are not exempted from it, I don't know. There will never be an H3 and H4 property on Lanai.

Yeah, they're not gonna be affected. Any other discussion? Go ahead, Member Cook.

I have a question. Is there any concern about where people are gonna stay?

I mean, you got... We have enough TBR units on Molokai.

Okay, thank you, that was my only question.

And you need permission to come to Molucca anyway, so. You gotta check with our chief, Genta Olindo. And in addition, Mahalo member Cook for that. I was gonna say this in my overall comments, but on Molokai, one of the complexes that's on the Minnetonka list in Mana'e have actually went the opposite direction. There are more residents that live in that complex and they want community, they want to have neighbors and not be surrounded by tourists. And so they've met with my office and advocated for the phase out so that they can have a community there.

Yeah. Thank you. Do you have any other questions? Does anybody need a roll call? Okay. If not, if that's the case, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, you have seven ayes, no nos to excuse members Patangan and Johnson. Aye.

Okay, thank you. Members, and now we're at the main motion as amended twice at this point. Does anybody have any further discussion? Anybody have any further discussion? This is lovely.

Yes. Could staff just ask for the body's permission to amend the last paragraph of section one to incorporate the Molokai amendment, the amendments being made today?

Yes. Yeah, please make it consistent with the amendments, if that's okay. Yes, go ahead, Member Orleans-Bernandez.

Mahalo, Chair, and Ms. Nakata is referring to Section 1. This ordinance purpose is to approve the changes to the comprehensive zoning ordinance proposed by Resolution 25-230-FD1 and recommended by the Bill 9 Temporary Investigative Group. And so this also includes the recommendation from the Multi-Planning Commission. Okay. And then if we do add Lanai, then we can make that additional amendment at that time.

Sounds good.

Okay.

Yes, go ahead.