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

Will the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee come to order? The time is now 9.05. And if everyone can please silence their cell phones or other noise-making devices. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, if you are not in the council chambers, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the meeting vehicle or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Also, please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. My name is Tamara Paulton and I'll be the chair for your DRIP committee today. Our Committee Vice Chair Nohelani Uuhajans is excused, as is Council Member Kawanoe Batangan. With us we have from the South Maui Residency area, Council Member Tom Cook.

Aloha and good morning, Chair. I am at my house, my residence in Kihei. My wife is here also in the house, and I'm under the weather, not feeling good, but... 100% committed to the program here for the South Carolina Community College.

Okay, thank you. I understand your wife is not a minor, so if you can identify her by name.

Ikyonko.

Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Gabe Johnson.

Good morning, Chair, council members, community members. There's no testifiers at the Lanai District office, and I'm here and ready to work. Thank you.

Thank you. And we also have Council Chair Alice Lee. Aloha kakayaka.

Aloha kakayaka. And if you're going to Belgium this weekend, you can say salut. Salut to everyone. I'm home alone in my workspace, still recovering, I hope. Mr. Cook, you didn't catch what I have. No one's here with me, as I said, home alone. Looking forward to your meeting. Sorry I missed your first one yesterday.

Thank you. Thank you. We also have with us Council Member Keone Rollins-Fernandez. Salute and aloha kakaiaka.

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

Thank you. And we have Council Member Shane Sinensi. Salute and aloha kakaiaka.

Aloha kakaiaka, Chair, and salute. Happy to be here. No testifiers in Hana, Chair.

Thank you. And we also have committee member Yukile Sugimura. Salud and aloha kakahiaka.

Salud and good morning, everybody. Great to be here. Sorry I missed your meeting also yesterday. So looking forward to progressing.

Thanks. Thank you. This meeting of the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee of the Maui County Council is located on the traditional aina of Kanaka'o'iwi who never ceded their sovereignty to the United States. We recognize that Her Majesty Queen Liliuokalani yielded the Hawaiian Kingdom to the U.S. in duress under threat of violence to avoid the bloodshed of her people. We further recognize that Hawai'i remains an illegally occupied nation-state by the U.S., as documented in a 2021 scholarly article for the National Lawyers Guild Review by Andrew Reid, adjunct professor of law at the University Denver Sturm College of Law. Generations of kanaka maoli and their knowledge systems have sustainably cared for Hawai'i and continue to do so. We are grateful to occupy this space and learn the ways in which we can contribute. As a committee, we seek to support the varied strategies that the indigenous people of Hawai'i are using to protect their land and their communities and commit to dedicating time and resources to working in solidarity. From the Department of Planning today, we have Long Range Division Planner Karen Komkovic. From the Department of Transportation, we have Transportation Planner Julia Meinhart. From Corporation Council, we have Deputy Corporation Council Nunokawa, as well as Deputy Corporation Council Hopper. We have invited Department of Public Works, Parks, Management and Housing, but these resources would be on call and join when we begin reviewing section two. For Section 2.2, the Department of Human Concerns was invited, but Director and Deputy Director were unavailable, but I don't think we'll get to 2.2 today. Other resources we have with us, South Maui CPAC Chair Rob Weltme. Members, oh, and I don't see him, but also a resource is South Maui CPAC Vice Chair Daniel Kanahele. Members, without... Objection, I will designate Mr. Weltman and Mr. Kanahelea as resource persons under Rule 18A of the Rules of the Council due to their knowledge and expertise as South Maui Community Plan Advisory Committee members or CPAC. We also have DRIP Committee staff with us this morning. Oh, thank you. Amazing team of legislative attorney, Carla Nakata, supervising legislative analyst, James Krueger, legislative analyst, Jarrett Pascual, Ryan Ramirez, senior committee secretary, Yvette Boutelier. We have assistant clerk, Lady Neen, and Ambassador of Aloha, Ryan Martins, and Tech Expertise, Bruce Hashimoto. On the agenda today, we have one item, DRIP 25, Bill 108-2026, a bill for an ordinance amending Section 2.80B-070 Maui County Code to adopt the updated South Maui Community Plan. We will take testimony after opening remarks and presentations if there are any. Yesterday we did two site visits in Kihei. One was at the Kihei Mauka location. The other was at the North South Collector Road endpoint on Liloa and I believe Waipuilani was it? Yeah. And we also received a list of five other locations that the planning department advised would be good places for us to check out. A lot of them are in the areas of change. And so we have this whole month to go on your own. I heard a lot last night was a lot of concern about infrastructure, life safety, the need for housing for people that don't have housing. Also, just that it seemed as though people felt it was a little bit development heavy. There was concern about the financial plan and how we would make the money or where the money would come from for the implementation portion of things. And there was a concern also that we were rushing through this, although it, took us about six years to get to this point, but that wasn't us, it was the county as a whole. So I would suggest that members who weren't able to make it last night, it was streamed on Akaku. So if you can either watch it or have your staff to give you a summary on the testimony, that would be probably a beneficial idea because it was all in-person testimony from people in the community. We also had a request to read the draft South Maui vision statement at the start of every meeting, to kind of set the tone, which I thought was a good idea. So the draft South Maui vision statement at this point, this is what it says. South Maui's beaches, coastal waters, and wetlands are restored and thriving with affordable housing close to good jobs and a variety of transportation options, including safe walking and biking paths lined with trees, The region's businesses, parks, and neighborhoods are connected, maintaining the small town lifestyle. Cultural resources are protected and celebrated, enhancing South Maui's sense of place. So that's the vision we're working towards, unless anybody wanted to propose an amendment. So as I stated last night, we're gonna start with two, then four, three, then one and five as sections. We'll proceed chronologically through each subsection with discussion and decisions before moving on to subsequent sections, especially in section two. The format for the plans review is we can make a motion to pass Bill 108 on first reading and then go through and amend section by section. This process is intended to eliminate any post-meeting questions and provide for a thorough review and discussion throughout these proceedings. As I said earlier, Staff would appreciate it if we don't do any straw polling or do anything by consensus like how we sometimes do during budget. So the assumption will be unless there is a specific amendment to change something, It is what it is. So we're going through the plan. It is what it is unless there is a motion to amend it, then we change it. So we won't be saying consensus or anything like that. It'll be what it is unless it's changed by us. Yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. That sounds good. So will the process be that we'll start with a main motion and then we'll make a motion to amend along the way?

Yeah. Okay. And I had been discussing, you know, in light of last night's testimony, when we get to Section 3, we might not do legislative action right at that time and take the entirety of the plan and do the legislative action on Section 3 towards the end because I think we could get hung up on... And so we'll just go through it for informational purposes and hold off decision-making on section three till the end.

And section three is the growth boundary?

Growth map boundaries, yeah, and areas of change and stability. Okay. But other than that, it's not my intention to return to any section unless we receive new information that we didn't already have. And we can always revisit at the end, similar to budget where the last couple of days are for revisions, but we don't wanna switch back and forth between sections. So once we close up section two, it'll remain closed until the very end of the process when we go back for revisions. So you can make notes. of revisions that you'd like. Any proposed late revisions based on outside conversations should be supported by written verification from the cited source. For each goal in Section 2, we have invited the relative departments in case members have questions or comments for them. For instance, because Section 2.1's goals deals with transportation networks, We have invited the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transportation and we've gotten notes from the Maui Metropolitan Planning Organization because the director had a conference during this time. As we review section two, we will also be reviewing the following attachments that I mentioned last night and the whole, they call it a crosswalk, I'm not sure why, but that is the last item posted to Granicus and it goes over by section which attachments correlate to each section. So when we're going over those sections, try to have those attachments at the ready. So attachment three A, is the Matrix of Recommendations and Changes. So this is on Granicus number three, beginning page 201. and it has the department's draft, what it said, the CPAC's draft, what it said, the Maui Planning Commission's draft, what it says, changes made per drafting guidelines, and then recommended changes is at the very end, and that's based on conversations between Corp Council, Planning Department, and OEV Resources. Attachment 4 will come into play when we get to Section 2.4 and 2.5, their updated introductions. And then Attachment 10A is the South Maui Community Plan Policy Alignment with General Plan Policies, which is Granite Case Number 3, beginning on page 404. A court counsel has requested a potential executive meeting, but the committee should ask all questions in the open meeting. I'd like to keep it in the open as much as possible. Maybe hold off on executive session till all the members are here, but I would like to get the lawyer's advice as much as can be given in open session. And as I mentioned before, the crosswalk on the relative attachments is Granicus number 10. Planning, did you have any opening comments for today? No? Corp Council, any opening comments for today?

No, Chair, not right now. Thank you.

Not right now.

I also don't have any.

Okay, thank you. So we will now move on to public testimony for DRIP 25. Written testimony is encouraged and can be submitted via e-comment link at Maui County Agendas. There's 224 pages up there. As of last night, a lot of them is posted meeting minutes and other bills. Testifiers wanting to provide oral testimony should join the online meeting via the Microsoft Teams link printed on today's agenda or calling to the phone number which is also on today's agenda. For individuals wishing to testify via Teams, please raise your hand by clicking on the raise your hand button near the top right of your screen. For those calling in, please follow the prompts via phone. Staff will add names to the testifier list in the order 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 or 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 on Microsoft Teams appears as the name you prefer to be referred to as or as anonymous if you wish to testify anonymously. If you are in person, please notify staff that 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. If you're still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. Once you are done testifying, or if you do not wish to testify, you can view the meeting on Akaku Channel 53, Facebook Live, or MauiCounty.us backslash agendas. At this time, we will call on testifiers wishing to testify on DRIP 25.

Thank you, Chair. Our first testifier today is calling in on teams. The last four numbers of his phone number are 4945. You can go ahead and unmute yourself and make your testimony. Caller 4945. Thank you. We can hear you.

Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead.

Yes, go ahead.

Good morning, council members. I wish I could say the DRIP committee and Olelo Hawaiian, but I do not have access to the Olelo Hawaiian committee agendas. So I just want to say that first of all. It was good to see you again last night. Y'all look, everybody looked good. I would have liked to have seen my Papa Country representative, Yuki Leisugimura there. She must have had something really, really important to do. Because as we all know, Kulaupa is connected to Kulakai. Everything that happens uphill rolls downhill. I apologize. I got there a little bit late. Up to the next month when I could get out of the courthouse over there in Wailuku. Had a little bit of filikia with the court counsel office that had to do with Olelo Hawaiian again. I'm not sure if the, bear with me here, Chair. If the DMV office, I'm not sure if they know if they're a county office or a state office. So that's what held me up. I appreciate, I missed the part last night about how the pro-American businessmen, what you legally and forcibly took the reins of power from Lily Okolani. That's got a lot to do with the problems we're having now with the environment in Hawaii. And so I appreciate you repeating that again, Chair. The good news, I'll give you the good news first. Jean Pokepala is still working for the county, rightful, true county government. And the bad news is that the ambassador of Aloha was not exactly welcoming to the meeting. And I suggest whenever the college has culture classes that he take to learn Aloha and . I was happy to see Kelly King in attendance. She didn't have her super girl outfit on, but if y'all want help with the environment disasters, then vote for her as council chair. Okay, so I'm getting on the subject of the the South Maui community plan was able to at least view the presentation and plans. So thank you for having a meeting outside the high street complex where the county clerk's office plans to keep me in the dark. Spoiled. I'm very interested in the part when y'all start, there's gotta be somewhere in there where they talk about the houseless population in Key A. So I'm gonna be listening in and see if I can pick up a little bit of what the plans are for that. And finally, I like the part, Chair, where you said, I heard the bell, Chair. I like the part where you said about keeping the meetings open and that Corp Council wants to have some, talks and closed meetings. There's some shady stuff going in court council office, so please keep the government as open as possible. Justice for Lili'uokalani.

Thank you for your testimony.

No problem.

Chair. Yes. So when testifiers, question for you, when testifiers testify and they take political stands, can we stop that? This is not on the agenda.

No political stances during testimony, please.

I mean, for him to advocate for a candidate that's running is definitely not on the agenda. So he can say all the political things he wants. If it's related to the South Maui Community Plan, that's fine. We need to hear it, but not when you start advocating for a certain person running for a certain office.

We won't be having anyone advocating for a certain person running for office. Can you call the next desk over?

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier signed up to testify in chamber is Kay Anderson, followed by Travis Liggett.

Aloha, Chair. and the Disaster Recovery Internal Affairs and Planning Committee members. I don't know how you could have figured out how to make a longer name than that. It's good to see you again this morning. It's been a long time since we've seen each other. I'm writing to alert you that the YLA golf's description on the new area of change and vision change and challenges and opportunities was changed from the original proposal, which is inadvertently included and submitted in the South Maui community plan that has been submitted for approval by the DRIP committee and reviewed by the community for their comments. Unfortunately, your committee and the community will be reviewing an outdated plan. A memo was sent by Kate Blystone, Planning Director, to Kimberly Thager, Chair, Maui County Commission, and its members for review and approval on February 24th, 2025. I attached it to you when I sent out, I guess attached it on the trip email. The Maui County Commission met on March 4th, 2025, and approved the new Wailea Golf Plan. Agenda and minutes are attached. The agenda file, however, the file name states it's in 2005, but actually the agenda is in 2025. The issue is that the DRIP members and the community has been reviewing an outdated plan for discussions. How to proceed from here since now neither of you have had six days to review the updated plan? The South Maui Community Plan, I don't believe, can be approved as is since you were reviewing an outdated plan. At a later DRIP meeting, add the updated Wailea Golf Plan to another DRIP agenda to amend the South Maui Community Plan per the Maui Plan and move forward that way after you have removed the outdated plan that's in this draft. in 108, Bill 25. And there are other ways you could do it too. I guess you could amend the plan later on at the end and amend it to put in the proper plan that has been voted on, which is updated. And I sent that to you with the updated plan and all the appropriate approvals that went through the processes that Maui County requires. Mahalo for your time and thank you for all the work that you all put in. I have to tell you, I can't imagine what work goes in to do this. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Anderson. Members, any questions for the testifier? I had one question. Are you referring to the information currently on page 100 and 101 of the draft South Maui Community Plan?

That's the main section, but it's also in the appendices. I believe they're the last, the very last development in the appendices. I believe it was appendices eight. I may have that number wrong, but I'm not usually wrong, but I could be.

Okay, so A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Appendix C, H. I said eight.

Oh, eight. I think it was eight.

The appendices are lettered. Oh, they are.

Well, then I must be wrong. It has a photo of the old plan, which shows the blue course cut into three courses, the affordable housing plan, up behind the Wow restaurant. And the new plan has all of the development in the Emerald Course and the Blue Course isn't touched.

Okay, we'll ask planning when we start discussions. Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else? Member Sugimura.

So I finally got to the page. So you're saying 101 and 102?

100 and 101.

101, sorry. And that is the write-up and then the map?

There is no map in the amended plan. It would be nice to have had one, but there is no map. It's just two paragraphs of written information, maybe three paragraphs. Page 101 has a map. Well, that's the old original plan. I sent you in your documents the updated plan, and the updated plan is only two paragraphs that was submitted to... Oh, so there's no updated map that came with the Maui Planning Commission is what you're saying? Yeah, the new plan did not come with an updated map.

Is the wording on page 100... what you believe to be accurate or is that the updated wording?

The wording in 100 and the map in 100 and 101 all has to be removed. It does not describe what they are going to do in the updated plan. They submitted to the planning department just language on the new plan that they're moving forward with without a map. You'll have that in your attachments that I sent you. I sent it in your emails and also in the DRIP.

Yeah, I did see the meeting minutes that you attached in the e-comment.

So if you look at that document, you'll see the updated plan that was voted on and approved by the Planning Department, then sent to the Maui Planning Commission. They approved it, and I also included the minutes that showed documentation that it was approved. So that is what needs to be put into South Maui Community Plan and what is actually now in the South Maui Community Plan has to be removed because it's an outdated plan for YLA golf. Okay. Thank you. Did I confuse everyone? Yeah.

One more question. Member Seymour. Thank you. So you're representing an organization? YLA 808. Why layer 808? Okay. Thank you.

I'm the president.

Any further questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony, Brian.

Mahalo.

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is Travis Liggett, followed by Lucienne Danae.

Mr. Liggett, you can proceed with your testimony.

Thank you. There we go. Couldn't unmute there for a second. I was blocked. Good morning, Chair, committee members. Hope everyone's doing great. You look radiant. And yeah, I am up here to talk about two issues in South Maui that literally keep me up at night. One is something I've talked about so many times, which is the disinfection of wastewater. And also I have this vision, haunts me, but it's a really really strong vision of a just like a military fortification grade irrigation reuse greenbelt firebreak along the whole length of south maui and these things are great ideas but as so many other things it's often about funding gaps and so i've come up with this idea for big philanthropy to filling these giant gaps and I put forth the Mlast framework, Maui Living Aina Sustainability Trust. It's just really simple legislation that allows big philanthropy to just dump funds into our county. And so I've kind of modified that into a proposed modification to the South Maui plan. I call it the Smilast. Nobody gets the last laugh, we all smile. South Maui integration, living in a sustainability trust. And I wrote, written up some amendments that you could conceivably adopt. It accelerates CBS 5031 really fast. Get that UV in there fast to honor all our families, keep them safe. And it also accelerates another draft code i worked closely with kca and some members of tom cook's staff and incorporated his comments and it would be like the first element of this irrigation reuse greenbelt fire break i don't know if it would have helped in line up but it would have been nice to have some sort of defense and that can protect my meadows connects 600 some cesspools to the kihei wwrf We've got disinfection there. We bring back the reuse water. We build a beautiful fire break. I put that draft legislation on your previous meetings, written comments. My last amendment is attached to today's comments, along with the companion legislation, which would have to be passed separately, the core big philanthropy framework that just says we don't need all these individual MOAs, we just kind of put a slot in this jukebox, all these great ideas that so many people have worked so long on. Because my understanding is that it kind of boils down to funding, which is just access to resources, getting those boats to bring things in and hire all the wonderful people. Just a different way of thinking. And I also have plausible pathways to getting those big billion dollar donations. But if the legislative framework is not there, there's no coin slot in the jukebox. And it doesn't cost anything to pass this. And it creates a container for this prosperity because there's a lot of money in South Maui.

And there are people with nice homes. Can you wrap it up?

Yes, there are people with nice homes that wouldn't think twice about, and they would forget about all the zeros. And suddenly we'd have this great vision that's shared with Member Cook and so many others. So thank you.

Thank you, members. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you. Oh, Tom, sorry. Go ahead, Tom.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Liggett, for your testimony. Could you submit an outline for the program that you're discussing? It's a great idea, just kind of a sketch so we can review and discuss it.

Absolutely, so I will do that and I also sent fully formatted draft legislation. One was in your previous meeting yesterday in the written comments, the NLAS framework. Today, a fully formatted amendment is in the written comments I just posted a few minutes ago. It's designed to be something that doesn't need much more work, but I know you have your procedure and your lawyers, but I will also send a brief outline, but it's just real simple. Create the legislative framework to say, insert cash here, because there's no entry point for that, and we may have donors that have a lot of money and wills and trusts and stuff, and if you create the container legislative, you just don't know what's going to happen. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Members, any further questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Ryan?

Thank you.

Have a great day. Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier on teams is Lucienne Diné, followed by James Langford.

Good morning, committee members and Chair Paltrin. Lucienne Diné testifying as a private individual this morning. I want to speak to the policy section. First of all, folks may not be aware, but if you try to cut and paste from the document that you have, you can't. It's locked. This makes writing testimony a little challenging. So maybe it's just my Mac computer, but if someone could check... and make sure we have an unlocked version online. This would help us quote in our testimony when we send in written testimony and not have to retype the whole policy to suggest any changes, et cetera. Just personally, I have testified on and tracked the South Maui plan in the 1990s, the Central Maui plan in 2000, the Pahia Haiku, Hana, Upcountry, Molokai community plans, West Maui community plans, 1990s and the 2000 update. I have to say this process is just crazy. It is too rushed. And is this the only week we're gonna discuss policies and basically the public has twice to offer oral testimony on a very important policy section. Please tell me this is not true, but it looks like next week everything's jumping over to the growth plan. So it's just too rushed. By doing this, we're just making sure that not too many people can participate because by the time they hear about it and realize what's going on, we finish that section. I'm going to just repeat what others said last night. In some ways, we need to have clear, enforceable language regarding important policies. I'm going to give you an example here. Policy number 2.1.17, encourage early design and acquisition of right-of-way for a South Maui bypass. Now, what did we hear last night? Oh my gosh, you know, we really do need another way to get to Veterans Mokulele Highway out of Kihei because South Maui Road just gets out of commission a lot. So how does language that says encourage early design and acquisition help meet that goal? What does encourage mean? For instance, if we told the Kihei Mauka community landowners, we're gonna put in language to say that the planning department would be encouraged to look favorably at some proposal you have in the future to develop your lands. Would they be happy or satisfied? I don't think so. So if we are giving clear language to the areas that we can develop, we need clear language about the infrastructure that is needed to support them. Mahalo.

Thank you, Mr. Nguyen.

I assume that's the three-minute bell.

Yes. Members, any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is James Langford, followed by Nick Drance here in the chamber.

Aloha, Chair. Aloha. I guess for the guy that couldn't look it up earlier, as far as the DRIP committee name goes. So I'd like to just testify, but most of the folks have covered a lot of the topics already. So to move this all along, there are some calculations that can help mitigate the conversation for all of you folks. And those calculations are based on the amount of money it costs the county, her demographic, her area, to show the concentration of the funds and how that relates to the votes and the voting ability of the houseless person in that district, for example, would be your control point. So when you're doing the money math, um and setting the bar of like okay where does our liability where do our assets and and where does our ability to serve folks that are liability um for example when you include that in your calculations then no there's no argument it's like look we're allocating this amount of funds to to mitigate this now we've seen over time with the south maui plan um and and other development plans the reduction of services to to mitigate profit etc that being firm on that is reasonable based on these calculations that show and if you want to know Anyone that would divide by zero is okay with harming other folks. And those that would leave enough for whomever the houseless person is in whatever district, that is the definition in a financial-based system of not harming. So I just wanted to give you folks that and and when in being inclusive of the plan in South Maui, it's important to look at the like there are things around how money is spent corruptly and how developers and traffickers were tipped off. So that's really the main legal reason for you folks to delay things because That behavior tends to try to sneak through. Yes, ma'am. I didn't hear the bell. I'm so sorry. I totally didn't hear the bell. I would have stopped. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, members. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Mike, our next testifier is Nick Drance, followed by Johan Long.

Good morning. Good morning. I want to reaffirm what most of the testifiers have said, and the bulk of my focus is Lucienne really articulated the difficulty that we have as residents to respond to these things. Everybody is asking for a pause. It's unfortunate that this plan is coming down from the executive branch instead of up from the residents in this community. The formation of this plan, the executive branch has a legal responsibility to look after the infrastructure requirements first before doing this. And I think you're being given a booby trap to look at this. So specifically, there is a legal uh policy and frame for concurrency state legislature mandates and uh senate resolution 23 etc etc mandate that infrastructure be established and predetermined first before we do any of this stuff there's such a thing as a concurrency management doctrine that's widely practiced in Hawaii Supreme Court President Maui Tomorrow versus Maui Planning Commission determined that this process cannot be bypassed. All right, let's get to this. So my request, let's say it's a legal demand, immediate moratorium to hold all impending large-scale coastal zoning variances, et cetera, et cetera, until a evacuation capacity study can be provided, codify concurrency, amend the South Maui Community Plan and broader county codes to integrate strict concerns concurrent management systems. The emergency infrastructure remediation that requires immediate capital to, I think, stabilize wastewater pump number seven. I'm not an expert on these things, but it sure looks close to the edge of the cliff there. And last, We really need a county manager. I can provide some written information about what that does for us, but the things that you're being asked to decide are things that require accreditation by somebody who's skilled to do that. So a county manager has a master's degree in public administration, urban planning, minimum seven to nine years of senior municipal executive experience and signs an ICMA ethics code. The job that you're being asked to do, is so far beyond anything that you should be asked to do. These guys have to go to college and years and years of study to come up with, you're being asked to do that job. That's not fair. We are among a minority of municipalities in the country that doesn't have a county manager. So you're behind the eight ball. The administration should not have given you this thing to decide there should have been the infrastructure. It's legally required that that be established first. So everybody is asking for a pause. This is going too fast. It's strange that it's moving so quickly. And from all the testimony you've received, that's clear. May I make one more comment about the ability of the public to respond?

Yes, please wrap it up.

Okay Essentially we get about 48 hours to Find out about these things you give the information to council services They assemble it then it goes out to whomever a grassroots organization Assembles it themselves and then they disseminate it and then we have to look at our email and drop everything that we're doing in order to respond We don't have a chance the the last thing I want to mention is that If you think that testimony actually reflects public sentiment, it doesn't. People don't have time. They're scared to stand up and do this. They don't have time to come up. The hearings testimony that you received is nowhere near the degree of sentiment of the public. And I just want to make sure, please remember that, that just because you get 30 people here, 10 people here, No, there's thousands of people.

Members, any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

And I'll provide this report on infrastructure and the county manager by email later. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is Johan Law, followed by Kanilola Komonu.

Johan Lal, I am testifying on my own behalf. However, I did work on this plan for most of the process I left in July 2023. So I was there for the original drafting of the plan and through CPAC and all that. And I just want to make sure the public knows this has been going on since at least 2021 and maybe even 2020 might have when we originally started working on drafts within the long-range division and also I think it's important to note that we put a lot of work into actually creating that draft so that when it got to CPAC it was already in a good shape and that it was up to them to make their discretionary changes um and i think this entire process is very important and it's like you know the community plan advisor committee and then planning commission and then you guys and it really does make a huge difference and there's i guess a kind of a core memory i just realized i had which is that when the west maui community plan was at committee um there was a request by Council Member Johnson to make the maps accessible. And that actually led to all of the GIS data being published, put on web maps, stuff like that. So even one request or one thing in committee can make a huge difference for the public. So this is super important. And it's important to... to honor the will of CPAC and the community, but you guys also do have a lot of discretion. And I think that's the entire point of this process is to have multiple steps, have multiple chances for public engagement, have a lot of thought and consideration go into stuff. And just in looking at the maps, it looked like, the planning commission made a change that i had suggested which was um switching uh the tech park back to transit oriented corridor and i want to point that out because that's kind of an example where so last week i think it was council member paulton said you can you can have your cake and eat it too if you use a fork And I kind of almost like fell out of my chair because I thought that was funny. But the fork, I think, is planning because often things get discussed in terms of balance. Like we're balancing development with conservation. I think it's more helpful to look at things in terms of optimization or like maximizing the resources you have. So like, for example, you put high density development in one place, create housing, that means you can conserve land, protect resources in another place. So it's like you maximize and it's not just like we're going to balance everything or we're going to impulsively just have like lower density and then use more land. So like all these things, I mean, it's super important to put thought and consider public input, also consider you guys' own smarts and your own knowledge about how all this works and how everything fits together. So I appreciate this entire process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Law. Members, any questions for the testifier? Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Law, for your testimony now and also participating in the process all the time. Appreciate it. I wanted, if you could help me, my clarifying question is, it's not uncommon that we hear from people that things are being rushed and they didn't hear about it. But like you commented, the department worked on a program and then eventually it goes to the CPAC or GPAC or West Maui group for a year or two, and then it goes to the Planning Commission, and then it goes back to the Department and Corp Council, and then it comes to the Council. So I always just get, like, this has been going on a long time. People have had a lot of opportunities, but I do understand that they're looking at the very end, and maybe they didn't understand how it was being made. Anyway, do you have any insights in that? You've been a planner for years, and you must... You must have heard that before. I didn't hear about something that he worked on for 10 years.

Well, just to be clear, I was not a planner. I was a GIS analyst. But I do have some education in planning and I think it's very important. But yeah, it has been long. I can understand how people, like, unless they're really engaged, you don't know what's going on at the county or even the state or like the federal government. Like most people are too busy with their jobs and stuff like that to really pay close attention so stuff comes into their view like when they see a post on like social media or they see a story on the news and so like maybe just in general in government there should be more effort at outreach and all that kind of stuff but yeah this this really has been a long process and being long doesn't necessarily mean good but there have been a lot of opportunities to engage. So, you know, it's not just coming out of nowhere and it's not just from like the mayor's office or the executive branch. I guess the CPAC and the planning department are the executive branch, but there's like a public process and there's, you know, meetings, all that kind of stuff the entire time.

Thank you, sir.

Members, any further questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Go ahead, Ryan.

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is Kaniloa Kamonu, followed by Doug Ballard.

Hello, Michael. Kaniloa Kamonu. What's frustrating going through these meetings is So I'm one of those that are informed. I've been in this process since the early 2000s. All this development had come to the forefront. It was my testimony that while I was concerned about what is happening today, that if you're going to build Mauka on South Kihei, that all you do is introducing waterfalls. because you introduce more cement, you introduce more housing, which interfere with the normal flow of a rainfall of all its natural areas. And, you know, being that South Kihei is basically a marsh area, when those things are developed, you don't give the infrastructure any support to be protected this stuff was all talked about years ago and it's ridiculous that we're back here looking at another another uh proposal that you know we talked about years ago and we're going we're moving into another proposal and what you haven't fixed what was what's broken And, you know, basically back in the day, this stuff never happens to Kili. I mean, we had one road. We had no reason. Oh, you know, that was the road we used every day all the way from McKenna all the way out to Kahulu. You know, and we never suffered these things. But you get people that feel that they're educated, people that feel that they spent money to be able to develop it there. And all these guys are planning. We have all this education. Where is it today? It shows its face. Look at the damage that is being caused by supposedly people with accolades after their names that know jack about how things are influenced here in the islands. The ones who do are the natives. The natives are the ones who keep saying, you shouldn't build there. You shouldn't put things there because they don't belong there. But yet, like the Hawaiians say, yeah, They'd be all cool. They're like, listen. And then when things happen to them and their investments, all of a sudden they come forward and then they start crying, saying that, oh, I need this. Oh, I need that. We need better plans. The plan was listen to the natives because we know our land. We know the progress and what can happen. And it's came to fruition. Nobody like this. All these foreigners who come here to manipulate nature found out that it ain't happening. And so my thing is, yeah, you got to slow down. You got to keep building because you haven't fixed the problem. And adding to the problem makes it worse. Mahalo.

Thank you for your testimony, members. Any questions for Mr. Kemal? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony, Ryan.

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is Doug Ballard, followed by Robin Knox.

Mr. Ballard, it's your opportunity to testify.

chair he's unmuted on our end he would just have to unmute himself oh there we go i'm sorry um hello everyone um doug ballard south maui resident i want to first off thank you all for all the time you put in on behalf of us all um and i know i know that it's a tremendous time commitment And I just wanted to express my appreciation. I want to talk just a little bit about kind of a broad topic of growth paying for itself. Here on Maui, much of the development that we see, and this is especially true, I think, in South Maui, is luxury housing for off-island buyers. And yet we taxpayers in effect subsidize this growth because we're not adequately requiring the growth pay its own way. For example, when you have a large project going in, It'll be doing its own roadways and its own water lines and sewer lines and whatnot. But it has systemic impacts on our road systems in general. It will impact our wastewater treatment plants, our police department, our fire departments. And all those impacts, when you add all the different projects together, have a real cumulative effect, and that we're not adequately requiring that growth pay for those impacts. Now, this leads to a much larger discussion about the role that impact fees can play, uh measure uh the impacts that a project might have but um i i just want to get across the the thought and the concept that we are in effect taxpayers are in effect subsidizing growth much of it luxury growth because we're not adequately requiring that that growth pay for the impacts it produces on our various systems I think getting specifically to this, back to the South Maui Community Plan, one of the first steps that you can do is to reestablish the concurrency language in the different elements of the plan that begin to address the public policy that improvements should be made concurrent to the growth happening, to the development happening. And so those are my comments.

Thank you, Mr. Ballard. We have a question for you from Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Ballard, for your testimony. I really appreciate it. I just want to clarify, you know, there are sections within the plan that mentions concurrently, but they also, so I'll just give you an example. I'll read a sentence and tell me if that's how you see it. So in 2.1.18, it says, require adequate interregional highway capacity, including the widening of P.E. Lonnie Highway to four lanes before or concurrently with the construction of major projects. Would you prefer concurrently or before? Because it says right now both, but I want to clarify what you meant by that.

Well, I think if I'm not mistaken, and I may be, but if I'm not mistaken, I think the zoning approval required that those improvements, the widening of Pi'ilani occur prior to. And so that would be obviously a stronger language and so that would be preferable. But the one thing I wanna point out is the widening of Pi'ilani Highway only really addresses the widening south of Kilohana and is more project-specific. What happens to the rest of Pi'ilani Highway that's going to become increasingly more congested? What's going to happen with the rest of the South Maui Roadway systems, Kihei Road, et cetera, that will become increasingly more congested as the cumulative effect of the different project approvals become realized? Thank you for that response.

I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sorry.

Oh, and I know this kind of leads to a much broader discussion than just the South Maui Community Plan. There are ways that Communities across the country have dealt with this. I work as a planning director for a community that adopted comprehensive impact fees, for example, for schools, for roadways, for water, wastewater, police, fire and whatnot, so that the taxpayer wouldn't be unfairly burdened with those costs. And I know this goes beyond the scope of what you're talking about, but I do want to plant the seed for perhaps a better approach toward growth management.

All right. Thank you for that. As a farmer, I appreciate the seed planning. Thank you, Chair. No further questions.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Members, any further questions for the testifier? Seeing none, I had one clarification based on your answer to Member Johnson. You had said you wanted things to be concurrently, but you're open to the language of before or concurrently because before is better.

Well, I think that having concurrency language in the plan is in my view essential. But that doesn't mean that in a zoning approval that you can't ask for something more proactive or more stringent. And so I was commenting primarily on the zoning approval, which I think at least originally, if that language may have been removed, I don't know.

but we're only dealing with the community plan right now. We're not, we're not doing any zoning changes.

I know that. Um, I guess I don't know how to answer that question specifically cause I, I probably only in the context of zoning. Yeah. Yeah.

Cause we can't, we, we haven't really put conditions on community plan. The conditions go on the zoning.

But I see I think that the the the the requirement for P Lonnie extension was I think associated with why Leia 670. Correct.

And and the condition of the zoning for where I am 670.

Right. That's that's my recollection. But again, my my knowledge base is probably in inadequate on that specific subject.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brian.

Thank you, Chair. The last person currently signed up to testify is Robin Knox.

Good morning. Aloha. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I was at the meeting last night and one of the messages from the community is that we feel rushed with the approval of this and i was trying to figure out you know since we've been working on it six years why do we feel rushed and i wanted to share with you my thoughts on that first of all i thought back to the west maui community plan and i remember you know all the meetings there were a lot of in-person meetings with the community as that plan was developed When the South Maui plan, when we started it, we were still under COVID restrictions. So that was challenging. And even when we moved beyond the COVID restrictions and we had, for instance, the CPAC meetings in Kihei, there were some things that really limited the participation of the community. One was the space that the meetings were held barely had room for the whole CPAC committee, much less any observers or community members. The second was that a large number of those meetings were not either on social media or Akapu. And so again, it made it hard for the larger community, maybe people who can't come and be one of the 12 or 20 that could fit in the room. So that also really limited our participation. And for me in particular, that was a big frustration that I felt kept me from participating. and then there are things like the community plan designations it just felt like those were dictated to us we were if i recall correctly we were told that because those were the ones developed in the west maui community plan that those were the ones we were going to use for our community plan and i found myself sometimes when an area was given a certain designation, thinking, you know, well, I'm okay with part of that, but not the entirety of what's described there. So I think there's still, you know, a need for... opportunity for community input and i would like to ask the council to consider doing some facilitated community meetings that have both in person and remote capacity so that our community can fully participate thank you for that mahalo

Thank you, just wanted to clarify, like this one has in-person and remote capacity? Yeah, so all the rest of them are gonna be like that. It was just the first meeting where we wanted to prioritize the residents who came in person. The rest of the meetings will be both in-person and virtual.

Yeah, the format of meeting that I was referring to is ones that allow the community members to discuss things with each other, as opposed to the back and forth that, you know, that there's limited in certain formats like this. We can't, different testifiers can't converse with each other. And unless you ask a question, you know, we can't have more than our three minutes. And if um if something gets decided later on in the meeting um we may not get the chance to comment on it um something that happened after we comment so i i think the community was wanting more opportunity to discuss and formulate these things and um you know it's unfortunate like all the roadblocks or obstacles that this particular community plan had between the COVID and then kind of being suspended for a while after the initial efforts that were done online. So anyway, that's my input to some of the things that I'm feeling and that other community members may be feeling with regard to the development of this plan.

Thank you. Members, any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Ryan? Aloha.

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is Dick Mayer, followed by Albert Perez.

Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Last night you heard a lot of people talking about the fact that they feel overwhelmed already and are concerned about the future. I think one of the problems in developing this plan is that the planning department has not been effective and proper in guiding the whole process. And I'm going to try to give you some examples. For example, early on they did a research paper as to how many houses would be needed in South Maui, and they set a maximum of 1,700. But then when they gave guidance to the CPAC and then later to the Planning Commission, they allowed up to 8,000 plus units to be available for future development, way out of line with their own recommendation. Another example is, and this is a very important one, nowhere in the plan does it indicate the cumulative impacts and cumulative effects of all the things that would be allowed. And I'll give an example. You don't have any unit counts, no total unit counts. You have no daily water consumption that will be needed. No additional county services that will be needed to service a much larger population. No total vehicle trips. no school enrollments to plan for new schools no indication of the amount of additional wastewater and i could go on those are all absolutely essential that when you look at the overall picture of the what's in this plan you will need to have that to help you make decisions on growth areas on implementation policies etc The planners also have now put into the bill the words will instead of shall. As you go through the Bill 108, you'll see numerous, numerous indications of changing from shall to will, and that's gonna make the plan much less effective in terms of ability to be implemented and leaves a lot of it vague and uncomfortable to the public. We also have 10 major projects that I've listed in a table that I sent to all of you. And the problem is that if those projects start getting built one by one or several times, the infrastructure needed to support those projects will be diluted. There'll be a little bit of maybe wastewater in this area. They'll get some water to this area, maybe a road built here. But there's so many dispersed all over that that it's going to create even more chaos down the road the plan needs an overall and this is something that was left out even though the cpac asked work even though the maui county code requires it there is no financial plan that and and now i'm using the words in the maui county ordinance uh It should be a fiscally sound financial plan. You have no plan. So you have, even though you have a long list of projects, you do not have an overall, uh, number, how much that will cost and what, whether the money will be, will be available, whether it's likely the state or the federal or strictly the county will be able to finance the changes that will be needed. Um, I have given you a map and a table. I think all of you got that. I would be delighted to be able to have a few minutes to go through that with you because I think it will be very helpful. It gives a cumulative picture of what is in the plan and what the overall effects are. I think it will help the county, the community also understand what this plan will do for their community and what it will do against their community. So if you give me that opportunity in the future and put me on the agenda, I would be very pleased to do that. I'm not looking to take up a lot of time. I just want to make it very clear to you and to the public what's in this plan, because the planning department did not provide you with this cumulative element. Thank you. Thank you. And I have much more I could add, but I'll stop at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members, any questions for the testifier? Member Rollins-Fernandez, followed by Member Sugimura.

I'd be interested in seeing what Mr. Mayor had offered. I don't know if we can designate him a resource person at some point.

Did you have a time preference, like maybe before we go into Section 3, or did you want to...

If that makes the most sense for what he's explaining, because I think he's What I understand him saying is he took the cumulative impacts of the recommendations and policies.

Mr. Mayor, did you anticipate that that presentation would be good at the Section 3 stage or at the Section 4 stage?

I'm a bit concerned. You mentioned that you would be doing Section 4 before Section 3. And the problem is that Section really should be done after Section 3, not before it. And the reason I say that is Section 3 will describe where growth will take place, and only after you have made a formal decision on where growth may be taking place, then you'll know what the impacts will be and what implementation steps should be taken, which is what Section 4 is about. If you do Section 4 first, and then go to three, you'll find that you may not, in your implementation section, have covered all of the impacts that the growth elements, some for you folks to consider the order. I would think you'd want to discuss the growth areas first and then look what the impacts will be and what implementation steps need to be taken. But I would be delighted, whatever is convenient for you to go through it, I'd be delighted to make a presentation earlier or later as your schedule is open for that import.

We could do one by four, but my advice to the members is for four to... imagine a future where potentially every project gets approved, although that's not my intention. Because it's not only during the community plan update that these projects can be approved. So any implementation should act as though every project is going to be approved because we don't control what happens outside of the South Maui community plan process. and we should prepare for the worst of it. Okay, go ahead.

To help you with that section four, I didn't mention it before, but it is important. There are 145, I went through that in great detail, 145 items on that list of funding. Only 80 of them have actual cost estimates. 65 of them do not have any cost figures given, which is a very large percentage of them. So you don't know what the overall financial burden will be on the county budgets in the private developers, if they're expected to put in funding, etc. And if you look at the amounts already listed, it's $554 million, just to give you an idea of how big that Section 4 is. And that's the sort of thing that the planning department should have said, this is how much the plan will cost, and this is how much the burden will be on the county government, how much the state will have to put in for new schools, roads. a highway etc those that all that information is missing from you and i feel very sorry for the county council members who have really an inadequate document to review and to make very important decisions on are you done okay yeah i'll look to you for the most appropriate time for mr mayor's presentation okay probably before section four then okay mahalo mr mayor remember sugimura

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So in the South Maui Community Plan, the pages that you're talking about, it would be from page 111. Is that available for you to verify?

That's the section where they list all the projects.

Correct, the funding. But you know what, it's for section, it's section four. Okay, wait. Yes, section four.

Yes, section four is a section with a list of the projects. But because we don't have the cumulative impact of all the projects that are in the growth plan, It's tough to know whether that list is complete or not. And we don't have, as you'll see, so many of them, what they say, TBD, to be determined, costs. So your financial figures are totally unknown. And that's going to place a burden on future councils. to handle what you folks may be approving if you go ahead and approve the plan as it is right now. So I would urge you to send a message before you get to section four, ask the planning department to give you much better estimates of the costs of all of those items. They even have 15 items where they say not applicable. I'm not sure if that means that they're going to have to use personnel in their own departments to do the work, and therefore there's no cost. That would be a bit misleading. So try to get that, and I'll be glad to work with your staff if you ask me to, to help ask the right questions.

thank you so actually i stand corrected um so you're actually talking about page 113 in the south my community plan and it talks about a complete balanced efficient connected transportation network is 2.1 and then it does that for but this is a section you're talking about is that correct i wasn't talking in sync with you no i was uh let me let me i have that document here i think um one moment let's see if i can open it up um

I think he was talking about Section 4 as a whole.

It has the table. Yes, I was talking about Section 4.

With the action numbers, the description type, priority timing. Up to page 144.

Section 4, Appendix H. Actually, not Appendix H. Section 4, 4.4, I think it is.

Chair, does it go from page 113 to 140? I just want a 144. Yeah, that's section four.

So I'll take this for you when you decide to do.

Huh?

Yes, that was exactly the section.

Thank you. Okay. Any further questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony, Ryan.

Thank you very much and good luck. Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier signed up is Albert Perez.

Aloha, can you hear me? Yes. Aloha kakahiaka, Chair Poulton and members of the committee. I'm Albert Perez with the Maui Tomorrow Foundation. I'm here today to urge the Council to reject the inclusion of the 3,500 additional housing units proposed in the South Maui Community Plan draft, specifically North Kihei Mauka, Pi'ilani Promenade, and the Wailea Golf Course conversion to luxury housing. They're all unnecessary and they should be deleted unless other planned areas are taken out. South Maui already has 4,500 units entitled, way more than the 1,700 that are needed, and we still have evacuation in only one direction. Entitling 3,500 more units on top of that defies any kind of rational planning and will put more lives at risk. We are way out of balance with unoccupied luxury homes. Our housing and our limited infrastructure must be prioritized for local residents, not outside investors speculating on luxury real estate. To service thousands of unneeded investor units, we are now looking at expensive energy intensive desalination. This will raise the cost of living and water bills for every local family and small business already struggling to survive. We cannot continue to give away our scarce infrastructure resources to wealthy outsiders while asking local residents to pay the price. We need to focus on building the infrastructure that's already needed, and we're already way behind for the existing housing and self-mailing, not to mention the 4,500 units that are already entitled. We need to make sure that we're serving local people before we give away millions of dollars in value by entitling new land. Growth should pay for growth and not be an additional burden on existing taxpayers. It's not only the cost of the infrastructure, but the permanently higher operating costs that the county will need to pay for to service those developments. This is what has been going on for decades and it's why we're behind for infrastructure. The only time that we should be paying for infrastructure is when it directly benefits permanently deed restricted, truly affordable housing, not luxury housing for outside investors. finally the requirement for infrastructure concurrency for the entire south maui district needs to be put back into this plan yes it's mentioned in the county-wide policy plan but in practice that plan is really rarely looked at concurrency needs to be mentioned in all three parts of the general plan And then the cumulative impact need for infrastructure needs to be evaluated in it in every staff report for every project that comes before the planning commissions and the council and that is something that has not been done for a long time. Mahalo for your time and we appreciate your leadership.

Thank you members. Any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. All right.

Thank you, Chair. There's currently no one else signed up to testify, so I could do a last call. If anyone else would like to testify on this matter, please use the raise your hand function on Teams or approach the podium here in the chamber. This will be a last call for testimony. Three, two, one. Chair, seeing none, no one else would like to testify.

Thank you. Members, any objection to closing oral testimony and accepting written testimony into the record at this time? No objections. No objections. I might have lost connectivity through the internet. It kind of kicked me off, but we're okay to keep going because Akaku has my face on their thing. Okay. All right. Okay. Um, deputy clerk just rejoined. Can you see me on the screen as well now? Okay. Um, Deputy Corp Council Nunokawa, before we go into any much decision-making, I would like to get as much lawyer guidance as we can in open session at this time before we proceed. We're gonna go into the policies section of the community plan. Is there anything that you can tell us in open session about guidance on what we should take into consideration and what we should, anything specifically we should or should not do?

Hello. Hi. hard to say um at this point a lot of it sort of circles back to um what i wanted to discuss in executive session which is sort of more of a primer on how to guide your decisions moving forward i'm not sure exactly what sort of um advice to give you in open session when it comes to the general plan and community plan as a whole? Is there something specific that you'd like guidance on at this time?

Okay, like, for example, the first two policies in the transportation, a complete, balanced, efficient, and connected transportation network, the first two policies, it looks as though the CPAC had specific verbiage that they requested. 2.1.1 was measurably efficient, and 2.1.2 was... and implement. But, In the recommended changes, which we've learned is from Corp Council Planning and OEB Resources, the verbiage that the CPAC recommends specifically, like measurably efficient or implement, were recommended to not be put in there. And similar to the West Maui Community Plan, I would love to stay as close to what the Community Plan Advisory Committee recommended And so if you have a reasoning of why there was a recommendation to take out measurably efficient and implement, which is the tweaks that the CPAC had put in there, we'd love to hear the reasoning.

I'll try to answer as much as I can. in open session it sort of comes down to um sort of the difference between policies and uh implementing actions on things that are meant to be guiding principles rather than restrictive principles and creating a more defined distinction between the two what should be policies and what things should be actions and what would be the consequence of us not um listening to that guidance and leaving it as it it's still um depending on the context it would still um have the capability to be restrictive. It just makes things more confusing on how to implement and potentially leads to legal complications in how to implement it in the future.

Okay. I guess at this time, since if we do choose to go into executive session, I would love for there to be as many members here as possible. And member Uhu Hadjian had a very previously scheduled conference and member Batonga, and I'm not sure what he had going on, but I'll leave it up to the members. Is there a reason anyone would like to go into executive session to hear Okay. All right. Well, hold off on that and just give us your guidance as we go along if we stray too far from getting ourselves sued or whatever have you.

Will do.

Thank you. Okay, is there any other questions about the process before we move on after we have closed public testimony and heard the preliminary advice from Corporation Council? Yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo Chair. Last night, you kind of explained the overall process that we'll take in reviewing the plan. So maybe like before we start, you can maybe explain for the folks following along how far you think we'll get for today. So maybe under the policy framework, we'll get through to 2.4 or something, I don't know.

Yeah, I don't really have an expectation. I mean, we're not gonna rush through it. We're gonna be very thorough and we'll go along as we can go along. And that's part of the reason I didn't publish a calendar, like how BFIT has a published calendar because it sort of got a little confusing with each update of the calendar and some people were on different versions of the calendar. But in general, the idea is to make a motion on the plan as a whole. start on section two and go through the amendments. The assumption is if nobody makes an amendment, we're good with it as it is. We'll go through starting 2.1 and go on to 2.2 as we make our way. And then at the end of section two as a whole, We can say, is everyone okay with this for this point? And then we'll close it up. We'll open it back up at the very end for any revisions necessary. But we'll just make our way along. I did speak briefly with our legislative attorney, Carla Nakata. about how this process is a little bit different than regular bills that we may send to the Planning Commission or get from the Planning Commission. Generally speaking, we wouldn't add something on, or if we added something on, it would need to go back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Nakata's point of view was that this is our crack. and we can add things on that are relevant to South Maui Community Plan. We can't say in this, oh, West Maui will have whatever. It has to be germane to South Maui Community Plan, but we can add additional policies and not... as long as they relate to South Maui and what's being discussed and not have to go back to the planning commission. So I just wanted to throw that out there as something that we previously had discussed with Ms. Nakata. Ms. Nakata, if you're on the line, did I capture your advice correctly or is there anything you wanted to correct about what I just said?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I generally agree with that. I'd like to hear if Corp Council is also in agreement with that. But I do believe that this is the committee's opportunity to weigh in to the Department, CPAC, and Planning Commission's view on what should be contained in the South Mai Community Plan. Therefore, if there are additional policies that you think would enhance the plan, improve it, address some of the testimony you've heard. I think that's fair game, but I would also like to hear from Corporation Council. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Deputy Hopper or Deputy Nunekawa, are you in agreement with what was just shared?

Could you repeat just for the record what we're talking about? We're talking about potentially having the ability to revisit

Oh no, sorry, we're talking about the ability, like this being the County Council's opportunity to provide our input into the South Maui Community Plan. So if we were to say, add another policy based on things heard in testimony or whatnot, it wouldn't then have to go back to the Planning Commission. We have... the leeway to add additional information that's germane to the subject of the South Maui Community Plan, potentially based on what we have heard in testimony or by Kilo in the area?

Yes, I understand what you're talking about now. I would not look at this like similar to the land use ordinances that were reviewed by Planning Commission on that way. I do think you get a sort of a fresh look at this. I think the requirement for presentation under 280B to the, uh, CPAC and then to the planning commission is that their director recommendations have to be transmitted to them. There's no obligation that if the council makes its final list of changes to send it back to, um, to those groups. So you've got, I think a bit broader discretion than you may have on like, um, You could probably send a zoning change request for a parcel to a planning commission and then have it come back to you and then add a bunch of different parcels to it or something like that afterwards without sending it back. I think you've got pretty broad discretion as far as changes for the overall plan here. So yes, I would agree with that. If you wanted to add new policies or you have the final say on those designations, I think that you have the ability to do that.

Thank you so much. So members understand the situation. If we were to add a new policy or a different area of change or a different area of stability, it won't need to go back to the planning commission like how a regular land use bill might.

Yes, understood. And then last question. So we're going to be deliberating and then making changes potentially. And then we're going to recess to the next day. And then the following day we'll open up for testimony again.

Correct. And written testimony is always open.

Okay. So in receiving written testimony or oral testimony the following day, if there's feedback that we would wanna incorporate into a section or subsection that we already passed, like 2.1, for example, would we then hold those proposals for the end of section two as a whole?

Yeah, yeah. So as we complete 2.1, we'll go on to 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5. And before we close up to Section 2 as a whole, we'll have a chance to revisit all the sections before we close it up. And then we'll have a chance at the very end to revisit anything.

Sounds good. Mahalo, Chair. And then I saw Chair Lee with her hand up. Chair Lee?

Yeah, just additional clarification. So we're going to, somebody's gonna make a motion to approve, let's say section 2.1, right? And then, or what kind of motion?

No, we're gonna make a motion to approve the plan as a whole. Then we'll go into section two, 2.1 and go down all the policies individually. If nobody makes a motion to amend any policy, we're not gonna say, do we have consensus on policy 2.1.1? If there is no motion to amend, it is what it is and we just assume it. They don't like that consensus or straw polling stuff.

Okay, but everybody has a chance at the end.

Yeah.

Everybody has a chance at the end.

And during the process as well. Like, after we make the main motion to accept the South Maui Community Plan as a whole, we'll go into policies, page two, any amendments on 2.1, page 32. if nobody has any amendments then we'll move on to page 33 and take the policies up one at a time okay from a practical point of view we have eight people so it's quite possible that something will not pass so will that be deferred or how will we handle something that doesn't pass we can we can do a revisit um we can mark it for a revisit at the end of the section or at the end of the um plan as a whole, but that's not my preference. I would like to see what we can get through and what we cannot, but members can also make notes on their own if they'd like to try and revisit something if we don't have the full nine members. Right now, I think we have seven.

Boy, that's right, seven, not eight. Okay, so anyway, the idea is you take the main motion, for the whole plan and then we go section by section. And so the expectation is that we already have suggested changes for these sections.

So the expectation as we go through it policy by policy is to have your attachment 3A, which should have been provided to you. And we can look at what the department originally recommended. We can look at what the CPAC recommendation was, if there were any changes from the planning commission. if there were changes per drafting guidelines, or if there's recommended changes, or if we have our own mana'o to throw in the mix. So we wanna cross-reference. If some people think that the policy is not in alignment with the Maui Island Plan and the countywide policy plan, which they should be, that's what we have with attachment 10. which shows how the policy in the South Maui Community Plan aligns with the countywide policy plan and Maui Island Plan. So these are the other two documents that we'll be cross-referencing with the Maui Planning Commission draft plan as we go through, as well as whatever notes you took from testimony or whatever.

Right, right. I wasn't expecting to make those kinds of changes today, but if that's what you have intended to do, that's fine. I just wanted to check.

All right, yeah. And we're not going to rush. We're going to be thorough, but we're going to start the work. Member Sinensi.

Mahalo chair and Mahalo for going through the process and I think I heard last night and this morning about having testifiers be part of the process. So I'm happy to hear from testimony every other day as we go through the process. Yeah, and right, they can access at all areas. I did also hear like for pump the brakes and maybe Mr. Weltman and Mr. Kanaheli can maybe explain that. I took it as not so much maybe some parts of the plan that the community might wanna hold off on. That's how I interpreted it. I know we have 11 months to work on this, So I'm happy that you're bringing it up and everybody's kind of given up their committee time so that we can really dive into this. But unfortunately, we have other plans after this one. And unfortunately, I won't be able to even be here for the Hanna community plan, unfortunately. So I'm hoping that people can be patient and as we go through this, but I'll definitely rely on testimony from the community chair. Thank you.

Thank you, yeah, and the alternative to this is three hours every other week, which as we saw when we discussed Laniapoko Water Company from Monday to Wednesday, it seemed like some people forgot what was saying. So if we have three hours every other week, I might shoot myself. Anyway, any other questions on process that we will be undertaking? seen none. If the lawyers say, I would love to take a recess at this moment, we're about at the halfway point through our morning. And when we come back from recess, if there is no objections, I'd love to have Planner 5, Komkowicz, and CPAC Chair Weltman come down here. So if they are asked questions, they can just turn on the mic and have their materials set out in front of them. Is everyone okay with both of them sitting over here or do they need to be split up or anything? We're okay with them over here? Okay, all right, so we'll take a 10 minute break to come back at 11 and then we'll dive right back in. This committee is in recess till 11 a.m. Well, the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting of September 15th returned to order. The time is now 1109 and I did have one further clarification and I did want to recognize also we had the planning director Jackie Takakura joining us. From Department of Public Works, we have Kyle Genoza, Engineering Program Manager, as well as from Parks CIP Coordinator, William Frampton. What I did want to clarify was a question that came up during the break, and it's my understanding with council-initiated changes in zoning, if we defer deviate from the planning commission's recommendation at the full council, it would require six votes. But this is a planning department initiated community plan. And so that standard is not the same and it's a simple majority to change what we've received from the planning commission. Is there a lawyer online that can verify that?

only need five votes hi chair hi chair that's correct i think there's a lot of reasons for that i think the community plan decennial amendments is sort of its own category but even if this was viewed as a land use ordinance this was not the only ordinances that need a two-thirds vote are those initiated by the council by resolution that go to the planning commission and this was certainly not that So there wouldn't be a need other than to get a majority vote on the final decision on the plan, which is adopted by ordinance. So that's correct.

Thank you. So everyone understand that clarification changes can be made with five votes. Yep. Okay. All right. Okay. And then we did have the option to just make amendments as we go on. My preference was to have a overall motion to approve a bill one Oh eight and then roll it over to each, um, reconvened meeting and pick it up again. So we have the main motion and then we'll work the amendments through. Is that okay with everyone as well? Okay, okay, let's see. So we have a motion from Member Sinensi to recommend passage of Bill 108-2026 on first reading. Do I have a second? Seconded by Member Sugimura. Is there any discussion before we proceed to amend Section 2.1? No. Okay. So we're starting with Section 2, which begins on page 30. Page 30, 31 and 32 are the introduction sections. I didn't see anything to me that warranted amending. Does anyone have any motion to amend on page 30, 31 or 32? We can come back to it at the end of 2.1 as well but, Okay. So now we jump right into the actual policies. If everyone has attachment three, a page one will be, um, mainly cross referencing that, um, as we work through the plan. Uh, so the first policy The main difference here is measurably efficient. That's what CPAC changed or added in. Maui Planning Commission didn't make any changes. Changes per draft guidelines just rearranged the verbiage a little, added a multimodal transportation system as a sentence. And then the recommended changes was to take out measurably efficient. I guess at this time, to give us a little background, I'd call on Mr. Weltman to explain to us what the CPAC was thinking by including the words measurably efficient.

I'm going to make a call.

Yeah, so what you don't measure, you can't fix. And it was important to us throughout the plan to have language which can be easy to follow and implement and also determine whether the language has been fulfilled and so. it's very important to be able to measure traffic efficiency and not just say, yes, it should improve. I think everyone will agree it should improve, but we need to be able to measure it. And just for a little bit of background, people in South Maui are very, very upset about the current throughput of traffic along Pilani Highway, especially around Lipua, Pekia, and then sometimes at the North Kihei boundary as well. And then we wanna know, well, How many cars are there passing by right now? And what is the capacity? And we can't get those numbers. And that's important to know. We need to know what are the numbers? What were the numbers a year ago? What is the trend? What do we need to improve? There are cameras. But according to what I've heard, they have 4G network connectors, which is not sufficient to provide real-time information, so they can't use those cameras to determine the actual throughput. So that's really in a nutshell that we want to be able to measure and fix.

Just to clarify, when you're talking about that measurably efficient, are we talking about like a level of service rating, like they have like LOSC or LOSD or just the volume of traffic? Like what would be the measuring that the CPAC was looking for?

We were thinking of level of service, which goes from A to F by the state's categories where E is just barely acceptable and F is unacceptable.

Okay, thank you. And then if we could hear from the planning department, the reasoning why in the recommended changes, measurably efficient was removed.

That language was removed as Corp Council Nunekawa said because it is, oh wait, did I turn that on? Sorry. Because it is action language and an implementing action measurably efficient makes sense. And it is in the actions. There have been, there's been language added.

Can you point us to which action the language was added to? Attachment 3C.

Attachment 3C. And beginning on page 3, is there a specific one that... 3C, page 3? Pages 3, 4, and 5. Pages 3, 4, and 5. one specifically says multimodal level of service with a goal of incremental improvement of level of service. So that would be an action for the county departments to take up. Whereas policies are primarily reviewed when you're reviewing a development or when you're making recommendations to council bills.

Okay, so members, they wanted it to be measured. Planning feels that measurably efficient corresponds to an action item, which they pointed out was added. It looks in attachment 3C, page five. So, There you have it. The Community Plan Advisory Committee would like measurably efficient. It was taken out by the recommended departments of Corp Council Planning and OEV Resources because they feel that the action of measurably efficient has been addressed in the implementing actions portion by addressing level of service for changes in zoning. And that's represented on pages 3C, 3, 4 and 5. And those are actions 101, 102 and 103 in your section four. 101A, 102, 103, which 101A, It says, undertake a study to determine the location of the proposed Kihei Transit Hub with adequate space for parking, room for expansion, and interconnected multimodal paths in the area. 102 says, undertake a study to determine the location and develop an additional transit hub near Ma'alaya to serve as a transfer station between the south and west sides. of maui reducing congestion and encouraging public transit reader ridership and 103 talks about increasing multimodal pardon me chair yes go ahead um

I turned it off. 105A is multimodal level of service with a goal of incremental improvement, oh sorry, developed multimodal level of service with a goal of incremental improvement of level of service for all modes of transportation during the life of the plan. And then 105B,

is implement a program to monitor multimodal level of service okay i see sorry my bad so 105 and 105 a and b are meant to address the phrase measurably efficient So incremental improvement of level of service for all modes of transportation during the life of the plan and implement a program to monitor multimodal level of service with a goal of incremental improvement of level of service for all modes. Oh, they look. pretty similar except for one says develop and then the other one says implement. So yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Yes. I understand what's being explained to us. I think it would be okay. Is there a reason why there isn't another column in both the policy section and the action section that has the corresponding policy item in the action section and action item in the policy section? So that you can reference, like a crosswalk.

Planning. I think a crosswalk would be a great idea. That is something we're doing for the central plan. It was simply the amount of work it would have been to do that at this point in time.

Okay, but you have that information now.

Mentally, so put it in the computer.

Well, we're going through it so we can write it down and staff can also help us track and then maybe those are amendments that we could make like an additional column in section four for implementation that has the corresponding policy number and then the policy section having the corresponding action numbers.

Yes. There is also the goals correlate with each other. So to a degree, 2.1 and 4.1 correlate because 2.1 is the goal for transportation and 4.1 is that implementing actions for transportation.

So you want to add another column? No, generally speaking, the whole section of two in policies correlates to 2.1 goal in implementing actions because 2.1 on policies and implementing actions both reflect the goal of a complete, balanced, efficient, and connected transportation network. So if there is gonna be a correlation between the action items, it'll be in that section. Maybe not with the specificity of 105 and B but as we go through we could like you said mark the court they the individual action item correlations

Yeah, especially if we're gonna be taking out language that the CPAC itself proposed and adopted and then Planning and Corp Council removed it for this reason that it's stated in the action item because it's more of an action-oriented language than just having it point to these sections I think would be better. Okay.

As we go through, if we see them, we'll call them out for sure.

Do you want me to make that as a motion or should that be like a non-substantive?

We can make it as a motion as we go through, like for this one, I move to like, would- 2.11. I'm not sure what you wanna do. Do you wanna stick with it without the measurably efficient and point to action item 105 A and B for how the policy gets implemented in a measurably efficient way?

I mean, I think that is a policy also to want it to be measurably efficient or to have it be measurable. I understand that that's action items, but yeah.

So are you considering by implementing a measurable multimodal

Measurably efficient, multimodal.

Okay, and you just want to make an amendment to point to the action items that correspond to that policy?

Yes, right now. But I guess I kind of disagree about leaving the language in because I think that is a policy, like creating SMART goals being a policy. But for now, the motion would just be to add 1.05A and 1.05B to 2.1.1.

And did you want that in like parentheses, like parentheses corresponds with 1.05A and B?

Whatever would be most aesthetically pleasing.

Okay. So we have a motion on the floor by Member Rollins-Fernandez to add to policies... Policy 2.1.1, a notation or an indication that this policy correlates directly with implementing action 1.05A and B. Do we have a second? Seconded by Member Sinensi. Any discussion, Member Rollins-Fernandez? No further discussion, it's pretty straightforward. Would anyone else like to add discussion? Member Johnson?

Can we hear it from the department? Planning or, okay. I beg your pardon.

Planning, do you have any discussion on the amendment as stated?

That's fine. But I actually just wanted to point out that the last one is the recommended changes. You'd have to vote to change it to that. The plan you have has measurably efficient in it.

Okay, so when we get to Section 4, we'll need to amend 105A and 105B. No.

If you're looking at the Attachment 3, changes per drafting guideline is what is in the draft plan. Recommended changes are changes that you would have to make a motion to accept.

Member Rawlings-Fernandez. So to clarify... Right now, in the plan that we're working off of, that if we don't amend, it has measurably efficient in the second line. The recommended changes would be the motion we would have to make in order to remove measurably efficient. Otherwise, measurably efficient remains in. Correct. All in.

Yeah, so the motion on the floor is not to remove measurably efficient, it's just to add that policy 2.1.1 correlates with implementing action 105A and 105B. Any further discussion? Is this a roll call vote? Okay. Yes, Member Cook, you'd like a roll call vote? Okay. Staff, can we do a roll call on this first amendment? Yes, go ahead, Chair Lee.

So we heard one side of the story. Member Cook, if you're gonna be voting no, can you give your explanation?

Member Cook, Chair Lee wants to know what's in your head.

Basically, the recommended change was from the Policy Department and Court Counsel, is that correct?

And OEB Resources, but their recommendation was based on their feeling that measurably efficient is like an action item.

That's not the most... And that the intent for measurably efficient is already being identified in the action item.

Yeah, but that's not the motion on the floor.

Chair, can I... I understand. I'm clarifying why. We changed this, we have to change that. I sense that it is being addressed when you asked Chair previously, what's the matrix, what is being measured and how is it being measured? And then Rob mentioned the A through F, that they measure traffic efficiency and in the action items that is quoted and addressed. So that's just, I'm just, if we change, I'm trying to keep it simple. I want it to be measurable. I just don't feel that, I'm trying to follow, walk in step with the planning department and the other recommendations that reviewed it and the explanation that was given that it's addressed in the action items that, my understanding of why they change it. So that's my explanation.

Chair Lee, does that?

Chair, sorry. Can I please clarify with the motion? My motion is not to make the changes recommended in the matrix. My motion is to add two policies, the corresponding action numbers. That's it. to add 1.05A and 1.05B as references so that anyone reading this plan will be able to understand that they can go to the action section to see the corresponding action items that follow this policy. That's all that my motion is.

Thank you, Member Valdez-Fernandez for clarifying that. That does change my perspective. I didn't understand that. So thank you. You don't need a roll call.

Yeah, it's clear. It's clear to me now. Thank you. So member Cook, you don't want a roll call anymore? Okay. Any further discussion from the members? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Aye. Chair, I believe there's seven ayes, zero noes to excuse members Uuhajins and Betonga. Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to 2.1.2. It's a similar situation. The main difference from the CPAC version and then the recommended is the word implement. And I imagine it's very similar to the other one, but would members like to hear from the CPAC chair and the planning commission or planning department again? Yes, okay. Mr. Weltman. if you can give us a flavor of what the CPAC intended when they added and implement, and then we'll go to the planning department about why they wanted it removed. Go ahead, Mr. Weltman.

So these are the first policies that were processed, and I think we're still working on some of the kinks, and there are some policies that got moved to actions both during the CPAC session, during the Planning Commission session, and then also recommended now by the Planning Department, so there is definitely some overlap. At the time we were discussing this, I think that if you are, If you are going to say in the policy section to establish something, then you should also implement it. If not, then it's an action and you should just deal with entirely in the action section. So this is also true of the 211, which we just finished, that it's actually almost entirely an action and an overlap of what's in the action section. But if it's gonna stay in the policy section, then we think it should be both established and implemented.

Okay, planning, any comments on the establish and implement and policy section versus implementing section?

It is the same comment as measurably efficient. It's an action language as opposed to policy language.

And do you have a corresponding action for that policy without the implement already in there? And if we do not, would it be prudent to just move the entire policy which with the words and implement makes it into an action item? Would that be something that people are open to? And while you're looking for that, I'll go to Member Rawlings-Fernandez.

So my question then would be, isn't establish also an action item, action word? Establish is a verb too. Establish and implement are both action oriented?

It's not about whether it's action oriented. It's about where you would be using it. So if you're looking at a development project, you can be like, okay, here's a chance to establish safe routes to school. We can put a walking path through this. But to implement that, you're going to need the community after the development's finished.

Mahalo.

So to follow up on what you just said, it could be policy established safe routes interconnecting South Maui, safe routes or whatever it is. And then we could add a action item that says implement safe routes that have been established. That's a nodding head yes, right? Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Is one of them 1.13? Begin installation of sidewalks, bike paths, crosswalks as prioritized in Akihe's sub-area transportation plan. Safe routes. And then 1.14, safe routes for seniors.

Yes, that's what I was looking for.

And 112, unobstructed sidewalk. So 112, 113, 114. And maybe even 115.

Okay, so then our options would be to remove and implement or to keep it in, to correlate it to action items 112 through 115 with implement in or implement out, depending on the will of the body. as action items 112, 113, 114 and 115 kind of directly correlate to the implementation portion of Safe Routes. So do members wanna leave implement in or take it out? And do we wanna refer it to the correlating implementing actions?

Chair, I'll make the motion to add the action items 112, 113, 114. I don't know if 115 would be included or if that would be like for the next one and I'm sure it can also be included for multiple policies. Because the 2.1.2 is safe routes and 2.1.3 is complete streets. and having complete streets kind of helps to create safe routes. Okay, so that'll be my motion, if I can get a second.

So just to add that these correlate to those while leaving implement in. Okay, seconded by Member Sinensi, the motion is to correlate policy 2.1.2 to implementing actions 1.12 through 1.15. Any discussion, Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Mahalo, Chair. These action items correspond with 2.1.2. Mahalo, Chair.

Any further discussion from the members? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Okay, motion passes.

Chair, it's hard to see on the chamber screen. I wanna say that there's seven ayes, zero nos, two excused, members Uuhajins and member Patongan. That's what I got as well. Could member Cook confirm that he voted in support of this motion to amend?

Member Cook, can you hear us? Staff wanted to clarify that you voted in support of the motion.

I do. Okay. Okay, thank you. So 790 knows to excuse members of Uhachins and Patonga.

And Chair. Yes. Just for Member Cook's knowledge, the chamber screen on the TVs are not good right now. So staff is unable to see you. So maybe when we vote, you can just say aye as well, and then staff will know that you're voting. Okay.

okay thanks i did have to i did get dropped so i logged back in so maybe that's why um but i will do that and if you want me to log back in and i'll tell me but i can verbally do it to confirm thank you thank you chair yes sorry i i'm gonna join online i have to leave okay okay

All right, we have about 18 more minutes. Would anyone care to make any other amendments to 2.1.2 or shall we move on to 2.1.3? Move on, okay. So the main difference in two point, yes, Charlie, go ahead. Sorry, I'm looking at my notes.

I had comments on 2.2.18, 1.9 and 20.

Okay, we're still in 2.1. Okay, just letting you know, thank you. Thanks, thanks for the heads up. I did want to mention as well that there were a couple other policies that the department recommended that the CPAC recommended deletion, and that is on your attachment 3A. 2.1.2, which was support increased access to micro mobility solutions such as bike share, electric scooters, shuttles, et cetera. It seemed to me that that policy recommendation from the planning department was incorporated into other policies that did make it into the draft plan. And that's probably why that was deleted. Is that correct, Mr. Weltman?

Yes, I'm pretty sure that is correct. I did go through this fairly thoroughly, and that is one of the things that I thought was covered by a new action. In general, just to speed up your processing of this matrix, I think that pretty much all the items that have delete in the column three are of that nature. In other words, there were ones that the planning department had proposed, then proposed changing, and so we adopted the change in the CPAC.

Okay, so all the deletions. The next one that was deleted was talking about mechanisms to fund transportation and you feel that was addressed in another section of the plan?

That's correct.

Okay. All right. I won't bring up the policies that the CPAC recommended deletion of unless somebody else wants to revisit it. But Mr. Weltman just stated the ones that the CPAC had deleted, the CPAC committee themselves felt like they had already been addressed in other areas of the policy. and so I won't bring those up again unless members want to take a look at it, okay? All right, okay, moving on to 2.1.3, which did make it into the draft community plan. The major change here is the addition of the words when practicable. and the deletion of the word all. So the policy as recommended reads, when practicable, incorporate the principles of complete streets for new roadways and roadway expansion and improvement projects. Maybe we can hear from Corporation Council about their recommendation to include when practicable. I think the deletion of the word all is kind of self-explanatory because when you say just new roadways and roadway expansion improvement projects, we assume it means all of them because you're not specifying. But can you... Talk to us about the addition of the words when practicable.

Yeah, when practicable is sort of when it makes sense and when it fits the situation rather than in every scenario being something that is for all new streets. It's when it fits the situation.

And can you clarify who would make the decision of when it fits the situation? Would it be the planning department, the developer, the community? How would that decision of it being practicable be made?

Sort of when it fits the surrounding developments and when it's something that can be implemented in that situation in a way that doesn't lead to potential legal considerations.

Okay, thank you. Members, opening it up for discussion. Any discussion or motion on when practicable? We still have all of our resources, which are Mr. Weltman, Ms. Takakura, Ms. Komcovich. Mr. Guinoza as well as transportation planner, Julia Minehart. Any questions? Yes, member Lee.

I was just gonna make the motion. Oh, okay. To approve the words when practicable.

Okay, it's been moved to include the words when practicable. Does that include the deletion of the word all as recommended? Yeah, and the deletion of the word all. Okay, it's been moved by Member Lee, seconded by Member Sugimura to amend 2.1.3 to say when practicable, incorporate the principles of complete streets for new roadway and roadway expansion and improvement projects. Discussion, Member Lee?

Well, I think it's just being realistic. Sometimes, as the Corp Council said, not every situation allows for all. And every, you know, there will be different circumstances that come up. So when practicable, we'll cover those issues better than trying to require everything to be the same way.

Okay. Members Sugimura, any discussion? Anyone else? Any discussion on this? All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Motion, I see member Cook's hand up. So I see one, two, three, four, five, six, six ayes, zero nos, three excused, member Uuhajins, member Batangan, and member Rollins-Fernandez. Okay, moving on to 2.1, Yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Oh, you wanna be included in the last- For that last policy item? Yeah.

Oh no, the action items for that policy item. Oh, okay. The action numbers.

Let's see, going over to section four, 2.1.

Chair, is the intention to make all these motions to add the correlating action items all singular motions or is it possible for the committee to consider like an all-in-one motion to incorporate, I guess, the correlating action items to each policy item? We can probably work with planning on.

That would certainly be easier. Would the members like to make one encompassing motion to correlate the action items in section four with the policies in section two? Yes.

Yes, I make that motion.

Okay, it's been moved by Member Rollins-Fernandez and seconded by Member Sinensi to correlate the implementing actions with the policy actions. Is that understandable, staff? Okay. And my understanding is then we won't do that work here now, but you folks may work with planning on the back end to do that correlation?

Yes, Chair, although if the committee wants to discuss for each policy what those corresponding actions might be, that could also help still.

Okay, so optional to discuss which exact implementing actions you want to correlate, or we can let staff do their thing. I leave it up to the will of the body, but the current motion on the floor is to correlate implementing actions with policies. And unless we discuss which specific ones we want to correlate, staff can do that on the back end and present it to us. Any further discussion on the motion on the floor? Seeing none, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. I see seven ayes to excuse, Member Wu, Hodgins, and Batongan. Okay, so if folks want to point out what the correlating implementing actions are, they can, and if not, staff will help us with that. Member Rollins-Fernandez, did you have your hand up?

Yes. Mahalo, Chair. For Sunshine Law purposes, I am in my vehicle alone.

Okay, thank you. So 2.1.4 did have some changes from the CPAC version to the Planning Commission version. And then there was another change per drafting guidelines. The major change from CPAC to the Maui Planning Commission was to base improvements on the project's traffic impact analysis or other studies associated with the project. And then the changes made per drafting guidelines are kind of aesthetic where it says required improvements may be based on the project's traffic impact analysis or other studies associated with the project. So may is not the same as must, it could be, it doesn't have to be. So I kind of feel that the changes per drafting guidelines is a little bit of a compromise between the CPAC and the Maui Planning Commission version. Both of them include before, or concurrently, which is something that we did hear a lot about. So let's leave that in there would be my recommendation. And it looks like the version in the booklet is the changes made per drafting guidelines. So I don't have any recommended changes to 2.1.4. Does anybody else? Have a motion to amend 2.1.4? No. Okay, moving. And then we already did the blanket correlating action. So that'll come in on the backend unless anybody sees a specific implementing action they would like to tie to this. Okay, not seeing anything. Okay, 2.1.5. Now this one, there is a lot of changes. The CPAC wanted a 150 foot setback and the planning commission changed it to a 50 foot landscape setback. And then the recommended changes from, Corp Council planning and OEV resources was to say not only those mauka of Peelani, but also those adjacent. And then there was some aesthetic changes about including a pedestrian and bike path where possible, which seems consistent throughout all three. So, There's a when practicable being added as a big change, MOCA and adjacent as another change, and then 150 feet setback to a 50 foot setback. Before we talk about any amendments, I did have a question for the planning department or Mr. Weltman or both. When we're talking about a landscaped setback on potentially private property, was any conversation done as to who would maintain that landscaping? Mr. Weltman.

No, there was no particular discussion of maintenance, but the, I mean, the assumption was that whoever owns the land is responsible for it, not just a one-time thing, but maintaining it as well. That's true for pretty much all owned land. But since I have the mic, if it's okay, let me just say that, and adjacent to is fine because that just says that it's the properties which are right above the highway as opposed to 200 meters further out of that.

Okay, so you're supportive of adjacent, you're still in favor of the 150 feet.

Yes, and that's a busy highway at this point, very busy highway, and we're not talking about, just to make this clear, this is not talking about miles and miles of land. We're talking about Pilani Promenade. There's no other land left right on the highway to develop, so we're talking about those properties.

So this would only apply to P'ilani Promenade because the rest of the land abutting P'ilani Highway has already been developed with or without a 50, 150 foot setback.

That's correct.

And P'ilani Promenade has not yet been developed so there is opportunity for it to be 50 or 150 feet. That's correct. Okay. Planning, anything from your perspective?

The property owner or the property project proponent did come to the Maui Planning Commission meetings and was not supportive. I believe that's why the Maui Planning Commission changed that. If I remember correctly, CPAC added this because it was a condition of the original sale of the land, but that should be confirmed.

Oh, okay. Well, I mean, we definitely wanna uphold any condition that was part of the original sale of the land.

So, excuse me, Chair, if I may. So this Pe'ilani Promenade property has some land use conditions, but as Karen said, we should confirm the number, but I believe the number was more like 40 or 50 feet. And as mentioned, the project proponent was not in support of this much larger number.

So 40 or 50 feet, most likely, but we can...

He was okay with the 50, but yeah.

And so I guess, can somebody look into the conditions before or during lunch or when we come back to tomorrow, what the condition exactly was? We are right at 12 o'clock and I did commit to a lunch break at 12. So potentially maybe we can look into this during lunch break if we recess right here on 2.1.5. Any objections with that plan of action?

I support that, Chair.

Okay. So we'll come back at 1.30. We're going to take our standard 12 to 1.30 lunch break. Member Rollins-Fernandez? I see you popped up your... No objections, Chair. Okay, so we'll go to lunch, we'll come back at 1.30 and we'll try to look into what the specific condition of the sale of the P. Ilani Promenade property was so that we can pick that up when we come back from lunch recess. Okay, this meeting is in recess till 1.30.

do do

Well, the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting of September 15th returned to order. The time is now 1.33 and where we had left off was on policy item 2.1.5 and we were gonna get clarification from planning and the CPAC on LUC conditions. CPAC, you had an update for us, Mr. Weltman?

Hello, yes, I talked to Daniel, Daniel Kanahele, and he confirmed that the LEC condition is 30 feet setback, so that's, I guess that would be a minimum, but then whatever else is negotiated on top of that. And then I also remembered, and then also realized that I had said that there's no more land to develop along Pilani Highway, but there actually is, the last quarter mile all the way at the very south end abuts to where they have 670. And at the Planning Commission meetings, when this item was discussed, Cal Chip Chase for Wellesley at 670 and Harry Lake for Pilani Promenade agreed to 50 feet but not 150 feet. Thank you. Do you remember that?

Planning, do you concur?

Based on our research, yeah, that matches.

Okay. So the land use commission put on PE Lonnie Promenade was 30 feet. They agreed to 50 feet. CPAC wanted 150 feet. Would folks like to hear from Corporation Council or what would be the next steps? Corporation Council? Sure. Okay. Either Mr. Hopper or Mr. Nunakawa, is it something that we could add on there 150 feet, even if the landowner's representative was only amenable to 50 feet, would that be considered a taking? Is that some policy that we could do, whether they want it or not? Can you give us a little guidance?

Chair, this is Michael Hopper. I guess maybe one point of clarification. If the general policy is a 50-foot setback for all properties adjacent, that wouldn't just apply to new properties. That would apply to current properties as well. So if those properties had to be redeveloped in a manner that required a discretionary permit is the intention to require them to build a 50 foot setback. We had sort of a similar issue come up with Kohoma where we had language stating that parks had to be located in a place where there was existing property and that caused some issues. So I would, I'm not sure if the intention is to have this policy only apply to new undeveloped parcels. I don't know if that's the type of language that we'd look at as far as existing.

So like if everything burnt down and then they went to rebuild the 50 foot would be applicable is kind of what you're saying and part of the decision that we should consider is whether it only applies to undeveloped parcels or if it would apply across the board if there are other applications that would trigger. Is that what you're saying?

I mean, I think generally the issue is, should we have, would there be highway setback requirements put in the community plan rather than being part of a subdivision ordinance or like a general development ordinance? Because you would be dealing with those situations. I think the situation that you pointed out is, and maybe planning can clarify this, but if somebody came in for a, I guess you probably wouldn't need an SMA if you were, uh malca of the highway but if you needed a subdivision um or if there was something you know like you said burned down and they needed an discretionary permit where the community plan was would apply with the force and effect of law i don't see a reason why that setback wouldn't apply so i think we would need to consider um that or or if they just wanted to do some redevelopment, would that prohibit that because they wouldn't have that setback in place. So that would be the one issue. And then the other issue with 150 foot setback over property in a certain case, I think we would have, I think concerns with that. Mr. Nunekawa can perhaps discuss that. But I think just the general issue of coming up with setbacks or things that you'd look at probably as zoning standards or as maybe subdivision standards in a community plan is a bit different from the norm. And I think you'd want to sort of consider how you'd want that to apply with the properties that both existing and yet to be undeveloped. I think you could put in language that that makes clear it's limited to undeveloped parcels or something along those lines. But, you know, I would just point that out that if you put in a policy asking for something like that and the plan applies with the force and effect of law in a certain case, they would still have to follow that, I believe.

And Mr. Nunekawa, is that the reason that you suggested the language when practicable, or was that not taken into consideration, special use permit or other subdivision requirements? in a similar fashion as West Maui and they needed to redevelop was when practicable meant to address that or we should clarify that we're talking about new undeveloped properties as of the date that we're taking up the South Maui community plan?

Thank you, Jared. That was part of it. It was sort of language to try to come to a place where it would be agreeable to the original intent along with sort of the concerns. I had similar concerns to Mr. Hopper regarding how it would affect um potentially too broadly and uh ways to sort of try to address that some of the concerns uh we can probably discuss more when we uh go into executive session

Okay, I guess I'm kind of hearing that 50 feet is what the lawyers are comfortable with. As far as the question of existing undeveloped or retroacting it to like a special use permit or something else, it had sounded as though the CPAC was only considering currently undeveloped properties. Is that correct, Mr. Weltman?

That's exactly right. We were looking at the, primarily at the plan pilani promenade development. Okay.

So, Mr. Nunakawa, if we replace when practicable with, currently undeveloped properties as of the time of the passing of this South Maui community plan, would that, or I mean, feel free to pretty up the words, you words prettiers, but like that general gist, would we still need when practicable as the developer's lawyer was okay with 50 feet, Mr. Chip Chase? could we say currently undeveloped properties are required? require all currently undeveloped properties, Mauka, of and adjacent to Peelani Highway to be developed with a 50-foot landscape setback to obscure development from highway view period, include a pedestrian and bike pathway where possible. Would that be okay?

I would have to... take a further look. One of the issues is just not knowing all of the property that it potentially affects. It might be all right, but without taking a closer look at the potential properties being affected, I can't say for sure.

Okay. I guess in that case, I'm thinking of language that would say something like when practicable require all currently undeveloped property Malka of and adjacent to P Ilani Highway to be developed with a 50 foot landscape set back to obscure development from highway view period, including include a pedestrian and bike pathway where possible. Moved by a member Sinensi, seconded by member Johnson. Any discussion, members? This is a fairly safe way forward, I think, according to the lawyers. Any discussion? No. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

One, two. Chair, I see five ayes, zero nos, four excused. Members Sugimura, Rollins-Fernandez, Uhu Hodgins, and Betonga on motion passes.

Thank you. Okay, moving along. Did you have your hand up, Member Cook?

I just wanted to make sure I got count. I didn't know if you could see me.

Oh, yes, you did get counted, and we can see you on the TV screen at this time, so good job, you. Um, okay. Number, uh, policies 2.16 and 2.17 are very similar. There wasn't a, there was a recommendation to delete 2.16 because there was a thought that 2.1.7, um, encompasses it all. However, um, In West Maui, we're seeing write-ins and write-outs like Kiawe Street and like that. So that didn't necessarily trigger a signal. So if there is the desire from the group to combine 2.16 and 2.17, 2.16 currently says, Encourage all future access points on P Ilani Highway to be roundabouts instead of T intersections, including the intersection with Ka'onoulu Street. 2.1.7 says, for all new or redesigned intersections that travel trigger a signal, a roundabout must be considered instead. So the suggestion in the matrix on page 3A6, attachment 3A, page 6, is to delete the first policy, but The second policy only refers to those intersections that trigger a signal. And then 2.1.6 is all future access points, including the intersection with Kaʻonoʻulu Street. If it's a right in, right out, I don't think roundabout, would matter. Is this anything that the CPAC has discussed about the similarity of 2.1.6 and 2.1.7? And then I'll go to members Senate and see after.

indirectly, because as you can see in 2.1.6, it mentions Kauna'ulu Street, and that was very important for people that it be exactly a right out, right in, which is what it ended up being. That's completed now. And it doesn't say for every, I mean, it talks about T intersections as opposed to right ins, right outs. So my opinion is that at this point, 2.1.7 is a superset of 2.1.6.

And, okay. Member Sinanti?

Yeah, just clarification. Is that on the state highway?

It's connections to the state highway is 2.1.6 specifically.

Okay, and then my general discussion, I just wanted to know what the discussion was. If a roundabout versus the T, is there like space difference where you would need more area to do a roundabout?

I think this would be a good time to ask Mr. Ginoza if he's on. He's the... like engineer, project manager from Department of Public Works, or potentially transportation planner. Sorry, I forgot the name.

And this would be just specific to the Ko'onoulu intersection, or all?

For all.

For all, okay, thank you.

Because that's what 2.1.7 says, which is the bigger, for all new or redesigned intersections. And then if we want it to incorporate 2.1.6, we can talk about taking out that trigger signal. For all new or redesigned intersections, a roundabout must be considered instead. So... Yeah, so is Ms. Meinhardt or Mr. Guinoza online? Oh, hi, Ms. Meinhardt. Am I saying that okay? Meinhardt, that's correct. Do you know about the area required for an intersection signal versus an intersection roundabout? I don't. I would have to defer to Public Works for that one. Oh, okay. Thank you. Thanks.

Chair, I apologize. We saw Mr. Kinosa earlier, but it doesn't look like he's on the meeting, but staff will try and contact him.

Oh, okay. Is Mr. Otaguru a transportation guy? or maybe he's not on either.

Apologies, Chair, I don't believe we see him.

Okay, I think we did say be on standby. Were there other questions besides the area required about this proposal? Yes, Member Cook.

chair i'd like to also ask address the idea of crosswalks at intersections that has been problematic at the high school like the roundabout for not having a stop is convenient adding that to it really threw it off um it seems like the congestion at leblanc and pekka if roundabouts were there it'd still be slow going but i guess

some people get stopped if people don't let you let you in the roundabout then they're still stopped as if it's a red light so i just be curious about crosswalks okay um planning was there any conversation about the crosswalks or safely crossing the street during uh or in the context of roundabouts

There was definitely discussion of roundabouts.

I don't know specifically if it are crosswalks within roundabouts, um, just because the key hay round or this roundabout by the high school had just been built. There are the complete streets that design is intended for pedestrians. Um, so that's one way that the plan is addressing. and then also the safe routes to and from like two destinations. So for the high school, that policy would also encourage that.

Okay, Mr. Weltman, did you guys speak at all about the intersection of cross rocks and pedestrian safety and roundabouts and how that would work? I think especially on the highway, not so much like the little one down from, Is it PEK Village or something like that? Was there any thoughts the CPAC had regarding crosswalks on the highway and roundabouts?

The CPAC did discuss it to some extent, but this is an issue which has been discussed for decades in Kihei, especially driven by Kihei Community Association and also by the Land Use Commission that kids need a safe way to pass the highway without an intersection. They shouldn't have to cross the street. So that's always been the position, I think, of the South Maui community is they should not have to cross the highway.

that there shouldn't be pedestrian crosswalks crossing the highway, period?

Well, if there's already an intersection with traffic lights like there is at Lepoa and PEK, then yes, of course, when cars are stopped, people can cross too. But the idea of a roundabout is to allow continuous flow, and continuous flow is not conducive to people crossing, especially not kids.

Yeah, I think I saw that yesterday at one of the site visits. Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. The roundabouts for the small roads like behind Safeway, that one does work because they have flashing crosswalks and stuff. So it's principally the highway. So that was just my comment. Thank you for addressing me.

So to clarify your comment, if a roundabout is considered and used, did you want to add on flashing crosswalks or was it that you don't want a roundabout with a crosswalk on the highway?

I was just addressing, I think roundabouts are great. I mean, because I didn't used to, but a guy from New Zealand that I knew said, uh, When we were talking about roundabouts, he goes, how many times have you stopped at a red light and nobody's there? I went, oh, okay, I get it. So that was it. I'm just mainly mostly on the highway. So we need a way for people to get across the highway if they're not going to. That's been a debate for a while. Anyway, I just, I don't want to get bogged down in it. Thanks.

Okay. You know, for me and West Maui, through all the fires and situations where we don't have electricity, the PSPS and whatnot, it is very... life-threatening when the traffic intersection signals are not working properly. And I don't think any of us love to see our police officers standing out in the elements, whether it be excessive smoke, the sun, the rain, and things like that. So I do see a great deal of benefit to roundabouts. um, Sorry. Director Molina will be joining us this afternoon. Is he on the call currently?

Not yet, Chair. I don't see him.

Okay. So did we want to hold on this until we can get the answer to how much space a roundabout takes versus a regular intersection?

Or when space allows for a roundabout?

Something like that? Both. conditions don't require a roundabout. The first one says encourage, and the second one says consider. So it's like, you know, if their space doesn't allow, or like in the case of, I think, Kiawe Street, when they were considering the roundabout, the grade of the steepness was too much for the roundabout they want. So I think the intention here is if a roundabout can be done safely within the parameters, please do it. But if it can't be done within like general accounting principles or general traffic safety principles, then no can. So, Does anyone have an objection to deleting 2.1.6 and amending 2.1.7 to strike trigger a signal? So we'd replace 2.1.6 and 2.1.7 to say, For all new or redesigned intersections, a roundabout must be considered instead. Moved by Member Johnson. Seconded by Chair Lee. So I guess for my discussion, this is combining 2.1.6 and 2.1.7, because they're very similar, taking out the trigger as signal, because like Ka'onoulu Street, Mr. Weltman said that might be a right in, right out, or something like that, to just consider if a roundabout is feasible. And if it is, please do it. If it's not feasible, then we have to go with what it is. I'm just admitting Keone Rollins Fernandez. And then I'll repeat the motion was for all new or to the motion is to delete 2.1.6 and to amend 2.1.7 by striking trigger a signal. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, I don't see member Rollins-Fernandez on the screen. So as of right now, it's five ayes, zero nos, four excused members, Rollins-Fernandez, Sugimura, Uhu Hodgins, and Patonga. So motion passes.

Okay. She might be deplaning. And then we'll later on incorporate which sections in the acting implementation that corresponds to. Okay. Okay.

Chair, could staff also have the flexibility to renumber the policy items? Okay, thank you.

I did wanna say that any numerations, like whether it's 2.1, 2.7 or whatever, we'll consider that as a non-substantive change and allow for it. Like even the action items, 1.02 or whatever, to renumber them in a way that makes sense. Is everyone amenable to that? It's better they do it than us, that's less work for us. Okay. Now I'm on page seven of the attachment 3A matrix, still on page 33 of the draft South Maui Community Plan. And here, one of the main changes that I see is instead of calling out the methodology of projects getting approved, whether it's a 201H, 2.96, 2.97, that is removed and it just calls including affordable and workforce housing projects as a broad overview. And that seems, you know, pretty, it would read, if we were to go with the recommendation instead of what is written on page 33, it would read, require new development and redevelopment, including affordable and workforce housing projects to include facilities and programs that support connectivity, biking, walking, and public transit. These improvements may be constructed by the developer, the county, or state or public private partnerships. So I feel like that recommendation just kind of streamlines it in case there's changes to the code numerations in the future, 2.96, 2.97, or 201H. Because I think a long time ago, we had a 201G. So just streamlining it in case there's changes in numbers, we all understand they're talking about affordable and workforce housing projects development and redevelopment. So can I get a motion to adopt the recommended policy language for 2.1.8 on attachment 3A, page seven. Moved by member Cook. Seconded by member Sinensi. I think we had the discussion before the motion. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye. No, you don't support it, Member Lee?

Yeah, I can see encouraging, but I don't know about requiring. So I'd rather take a roll call. Oh, okay. Because that might interfere with existing code and state law.

Okay. Just letting you know that this was recommended by the planning department. The CPAC supported it. The Maui planning commission supported it.

Yeah, I know. But if you had experience along experience in housing, you may not support it because of the possible conflicts with existing codes and laws.

Okay. Um, yes, member cook.

But one factor that consider is that it may be built by the developer, county, state, or others. So I felt that that pretty much eliminated that concern that it had to be done because it's saying, it's not making just the developer doing it. It's just...

However, it's requiring somebody to do it.

Yeah, for the benefit of the community, having connectivity, biking, walking, and public transit facilities and programs that support it. I mean, but we can table this and come back to it if members are amenable. Okay. Okay. All right. Would you like me to have that withdrawn or can we just table it and put it to the side?

We could just table it.

Okay. We'll put that to the side until we get more members.

Chair, Jordan Molina also joined our meeting as well.

Oh, okay. Member Sinensi, did you still have a need to know about the difference? Okay. Director Molina, do you know the difference in space needed for a roundabout versus a signalized intersection?

A lot. Which one are we talking about?

We're talking about 2.1.7. For all new or redesigned intersections, a roundabout must be considered instead. Member Sinensi's question is like, how much space is needed for a roundabout in comparison to a regular intersection?

You're gonna need more. So it's just a matter of how much more and whether there's support for taking that land through eminent domain like we having to do with North-South Collector Road. So I think that's your bigger policy question is the appetite for eminent domain to support that goal. Thank you.

Okay. And that's why it's being considered rather than required, I think. Member Sinensi said thanks, Director. Okay. So we tabled 2.1.8. moving on to 2.1.9. This, was fairly consistent through the planning department's original. CPAC, just the policy number changed. MPC was pretty similar too. And then just the action number changed in the policy. in the drafting guideline changes, which depending on how we amend implementing actions, it could change again. So I think we can leave this alone. And then if there are changes made, we've already authorized our staff to make the changes on numbering as non-substantive. Did anyone else care to amend 2.1.9? okay all right and um 2.1.10 is very similar as well the recommendation is just to um add in as identified in action 1.02 would be uh the recommendation and if the number of the action item changes, they would have permission to change it themselves. So this is kind of a correlating as identified in action 1.02. I'll entertain a motion to amend policy 2.1.10 to add in at the end as identified in action 1.02. Moved by member Johnson, seconded by member Cook. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, five ayes, zero noes, four excused. Members Sugimura, Rollins-Fernandez, Betongan, and Uuhajan, motion passes.

Okay.

Moving on to 2.1.11, there's a recommendation to delete this entire policy because it seems that it already has been exempted by HRS 205A-22. So I'm not sure if this is a new state statute that has been passed since mpc and cpac went through it so let's um see if we can get an update from our deputy corporation councils um either mr hopper or mr nunakawa can you brief us on hrs 205 a-22 and if the sma permit and environmental assessment has been exempted for multi-use paths, bikeways, sidewalks, and complete streets infrastructure.

Chair, could you please repeat the policy that you're talking about? I think I'm familiar with the change in state law you're talking about, but I just wanted to point out the policy again.

It was 2.1.11 on page 34 of the South Maui Community Planning Commission draft.

Yeah, I would say I believe there is a current lawsuit involving that exemption from state law. So whether or not that is a state law that's already changed, I think you can keep that as a reference to the council's desired policy if that's still the desired policy. So I wouldn't necessarily recommend deleting that.

Okay, because they did change it, but it's under a lawsuit. So just in case, we keep it as a policy.

Correct and even if the law were to change, that doesn't necessarily mean there's not a need to state the, if that's the policy goal through the plan, you wouldn't necessarily want to undo that because who knows the legislature may look at amending that again or something at a certain point, you may want that on record.

Okay, thank you. Let's go to the planning department then member Johnson, did you have something you wanted to add?

I had a question for Corporation Council. My understanding was the lawsuit was regarding letter W in the SMA, whereas this is item Q, the installation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of public pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including sidewalks, paths, bikeways, crosswalks, stairs, ramps, and traffic control barriers, signs and signals, and associated improvements as exemptions.

If you want to risk taking it out in those cases, that's fine. But like I said, action could be taken at some point in the future to amend the law, or a variety of other things could be done in that situation. So I wouldn't necessarily advise taking it out if it accurately reflects your policy. We can look in more detail into the lawsuit if that's something we'd like to do, but At this point. I just I wouldn't necessarily see the need for for deleting all those things If that's still the stated policy of the council Okay.

Thank you member Johnson Well chair, that was my question to the planning department and they it seemed like they wanted to add to the conversation and Are you guys on the same page with whether it be Q or the other number, or I mean the other letter? this policy reflects letter q okay and 205a i i like uh having the idea to encourage us as well as the state to for complete streets infrastructure i mean infrastructure is what's needed so and again it's just a light touch it's encouraging so i wouldn't mind as a policy maker keeping it in but uh i that's that's all i have for now um but i just wanted to hear from the planning department thank you chair

Yeah, I also like the while maintaining the condition to comply with all other permit requirements, including ship D is, I think that's a good thing. So if, Corporation Council doesn't have an issue with us keeping it in. I don't have an issue with us keeping it in. And to note that this one was created by the CPAC too, so I'm okay with keeping it in. Let's see.

I am as well, Chair, thank you.

Okay. I like the change made by the Maui Planning Commission and CPAC. So I'm okay with 2.1.12 the way it is. What the Maui Planning Commission did was kind of broaden the policy from just Lipua to the entirety of the South Maui Community Plan. and what the CPAC did was adding with priority given to the health and protection of the wetlands. I think to me, both amendments serve to enhance the policy and I'm okay with them. Does anyone else have a recommendation for a change? Did CPAC? discuss why they only put LIPOA or that was based on the planning department's recommendation and it's not something that you would mind broadening up to encompass the entirety of the South Maui Community Plan.

It was introduced by the planning department, and then we just put in a little refinement there, but I think it kind of loses its meaning if it doesn't have the Lipua business history, because that was the purpose of it. There are plenty of other things which are general, but this one is specifically about the Lipua business district, which really needs this, and also has wetlands.

So maybe support the integration of wetlands and drainage ways with greenways and multi-use path with priority given to the health and protection of wetlands, especially around the Lipua Business District maybe. Including but not limited to the Lipua Business District. That works for me. Corporation Council, do you have any problems with including but not limited to the area around the Lipua Business District?

Paul, you may wanna check with OCS on that type of language, but I don't think we would have an issue with that.

Okay, would it be Ms. Nakata or James?

Chair, I mean, we can defer to Ms. Nakata, but I think the plain language standard is just saying including.

Oh, including Lepore, including around the Lepore business district, okay.

It's just curious, is there like a larger area or this is specific to the Lippoa?

Well, I think he said he, Mr. Weltman said he doesn't mind of it being general, but they were specifically calling out the Lippoa business district. So if we could include the Lippoa district business district area specifically, there's no problem with it applying larger as the Maui Planning Commission recommended, but they wanted to be sure to call out LIPOA as that's what the planning department originally had the policy as, and it's a good policy for the entirety of South Maui, but specifically don't forget about Lipua Business District area. So that's why we wanted to tack on including Lipua Business District.

The department wanna add something?

Planning? The language you're adding makes sense. This was from the 1990s plan, the Lipua Business District specifically.

but the wetlands are strictly to Lepoa Business District or does it go beyond?

It goes beyond Lepoa Business District, but it's good to recognize that in the policy.

Because it's built on the wetlands? Okay.

All right, thank you for that clarification.

Okay, so the chair will entertain a motion to amend policy 2.1.12 to say, support the integration of wetlands and drainage ways with greenways and multi-use paths with priority given to the health and protection of the wetlands, including in and around the Lipua Business District. So moved. Moved by Member Johnson, seconded by Member Sinensi. Any discussion, members? All in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, once again, five ayes, zero noes. Four excused. Members Betonga, Uuha, Jins, Sugimura, and Rollins-Fernandez, motion passes. Okay.

This one, there was a change from the CPAC to the changes per drafting guidelines. I don't feel that it significantly changed it. It kind of tightened up the language a bit. So the CPAC version reads support the creation and implementation of transient-oriented development that will provide a mix of land uses, provide housing close to jobs, services, schools, and recreation, and provide convenient and safe mobility options, including walking, biking, and transit. And for drafting guidelines, it now says, support transit-oriented development that will provide a mix of land uses, housing, close to jobs, services, schools and recreation, and convenient and safe mobility options, including walking, biking and transit. So kind of similar to the changes earlier, where the creation and implementation is more of an action item and this kind of streamlines it like the policy that we're supporting is transient oriented development that provides a mix of land uses. That part is the same. Mr. Weltman, any perspective from the CPAC?

It looks to me like it includes the content, it's just less wordy, so it looks fine. Anything that makes it more clear makes it easier to implement, so that's good.

Okay, great. Members, did anyone else wanna propose amendments to 2.1.13? I don't have any. Okay. Let's see, moving along. 2.1.14 stayed as the CPAC version all the way through. I don't have any changes to recommend. If anyone else does, let me know. 2.1.15 It looks like the CPAC changed from ensure to encourage. Would folks like to hear from Mr. Weltman about the thought process there?

As I recall, that was just a compromise. People had different opinions about how strict to make this.

Oh, okay, okay. All right, if the CPAC was able and willing to compromise, I say we go with it. Okay. 2.1.16, the recommendation is to add to the extent practicable. Okay, moved by member Cinenci.

Second.

seconded by member Johnson. And so to the extent practicable for the transportation system, require the use of best management practices and green infrastructure to address stormwater runoff and drainage issues. Director Molina. Can you give us some examples of what to the extent practicable would realistically entail?

Sorry, what policy number is this?

We're on 2.1.16 on page 34 of the draft plan for the transportation system require the use of best management practices and green infrastructure to address stormwater runoff and drainage issues to the extent practicable.

Sorry, that was 2.1.16?

Yeah, it's on attachment 3A, it's on page 13. And on the South Maui Community Plan Draft Planning Commission version, it's on page 34.

So yeah, it's 2.1.18. Extend practical as it relates to green infrastructure.

Runoff and drainage issues as well, which I know South Maui gets more than their fair share of the rest of the districts or residency areas.

Yeah. Generally speaking, green infrastructure is good for small, low floats and water quality improvements. certain conditions like in the middle of a drainage wave may not be so conducive to those types of strategies that are meant for lower flows or smaller areas.

Okay, so this wouldn't be addressing those like 100-year storms or those high volume flows, the green infrastructure and best management practices for lower flows.

Yeah, and then of course, space is always challenging. If you don't have the area within the right of way to provide those facilities, then it may not be effective to try and put something there just for the sake of putting something.

if we had to eminent domain folks property because we don't have the space and they don't want to give up any of their property.

Sure, or if you're going to be trading off a swale for a sidewalk, or if doing both is going to increase the cost of the project tenfold or fivefold or some significant amount, those kinds of things would come into play for planning out a site. If there's new development, there's more opportunity, but retrofitting existing becomes more challenging.

Okay. Mr. Weltman, any comments from the CPAC perspective?

No, I think it's reasonable. Obviously, this was introduced by the planning department and we strongly support it. So we do hope that it will be found practical and practical in most cases because it's a better alternative than paving over.

Okay, members, any further discussion before we call for the question? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Oh, we've just seen Member Rollins-Fernandez. Were you voting?

Okay, Chair, I see six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members Sukimura, Patongan, and Uhu Hodgins, motion passes.

Thank you. Okay, moving on to 2.1.17. The great news is this was a policy that the CPAC came up with and there were no changes. So I don't have any changes to recommend. Do the members want any changes?

Seeing none. This is 2.1.18.

We were on 2.1.17. Oh, sure.

Okay. Yes, number 19. Just was curious how the discussion went, Mr. Weltman. Sure. As far as South Molloy Bypass.

This is also called the Mauka North, Mauka Collector Road. So it's the same one we're talking about there going from Kanani Road through Dipoa and then Kihe Mauka and then up to Veterans Highway. So it was a subject to a lot of discussion and you guys heard that at the meeting yesterday too. So it just reflects that.

Okay, so, No changes that I recommend to 2.1.17. Member Lee. Is the word ensure or encourage? 2.1.17 is encourage. Okay, thank you. Okay, moving on to 2.1.18. This one, the only change from the CPAC's drafting of it to the drafting guidelines is to replace the words prior to with before. And I don't think that's significant. That's pretty easier to understand. I mean, before, prior to, similar, I have no recommended changes. Okay, looks like nobody else has any recommended changes either. Yes, Member Cook.

If Director Molina, that's a statement, but what is his perception on that?

Director Molina, we're on 2.1.18 and member Cook is asking your opinion on that policy.

Okay, sorry, my apologies.

What is the granicus item you guys are working off of?

Director, the granicus item we're working off of, I believe, is granicus attachment number two.

And I can read it for you. It's page 34. require adequate inter-regional highway capacity, including the widening of Pi'ilani Highway to four lanes before or concurrent with the construction of major projects as determined by the Hawaii Department of Transportation and Department of Public Works south of Kilohana Road or Mauka of Pi'ilani Highway?

My question was, what's the staff perspective?

You cut out a little bit.

I know that between Wailea 670 and Wailea, below the highway, those improvements have been imposed on both of those developments. And so I think that's consistent with this policy at this point.

So the conditions that's been imposed on the developments that it would apply to have already been imposed on the development. So having this as a policy doesn't affect the pending developments, basically.

I don't believe so, but I would recommend conferring with the planning and the app that develops to ensure that.

Member Cook, would you like to hear from planning?

It just reinforces it. I agree with that and I'm just glad that that's the perspective and just reinforcing that that was a commitment. So I'm okay with this, thank you.

Okay. All right, so no changes proposed to that one. We can go back at this time if member Rollins-Fernandez is on the call to the one we tabled. Is Member Rollins-Fernandez on? Oh, Ryan Ramirez, you have your hand up. Oh, accident. I'm sorry, what was that, Chair? We were going to go back to policy 2.1.8, which we had tabled when you were no longer on the call. Is that the MPO? The recommended verbiage that the motion has been made for is to require new development and redevelopment including affordable and workforce housing projects to include facilities and programs that support connectivity, biking, walking and public transit. These improvements may be constructed by the developer, the county or state or public and private partnerships, or sorry, or public private partnerships, no and dash. So that's the motion on the floor.

I don't see that one, Tara. I see it on page 33, but I don't see it on attachment 3.

It's attachment 3A, page 7. The far right column. And the change is instead of calling out the mechanisms for projects by name, such as 201H, 2.96 and 2.97 Maui County Code, it's just calling it including affordable and workforce housing projects, in case those numbers change at any time in the future.

Totally understandable. Was there a reason that those specific sections were called out or was it just because those are the sections that involve affordable housing construction?

I'm pretty sure those were the sections that are known to involve affordable housing construction and the recommendation was made by Planning, Corp Council and OEV to just call them what they are.

I'm supportive.

Okay. Can we get a roll call vote?

Chair, proceeding with roll call vote, Council Member Sugimura. Excuse. Council Member Sinensi.

Aye.

Council Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Aye.

Council Chair Lee.

No.

Council Member Johnson.

Yes.

Council Member Cook.

Yes.

Council Member Patongan. Excuse. Committee Vice Chair Uhu Hodgins. Excuse. Committee Chair Paltin.

Aye.

Chair, you have five ayes, one no, three excused. Members Sugimura, Patongan, and Uuhajans. Motion passes.

Thank you. That concludes what is in the South Maui Community Plan, Maui Planning Commission draft. There was one more, policy on page 14 of attachment 3A that was recommended by the CPAC that didn't make it past the Planning Commission. That policy states, require the development of the Mauka Bypass prior to or concurrent with the development of parcels, Mauka of Peelani Highway. Going back to the testimony that we had heard last night and today, what I took away was that there was a real fear of folks in light of the tsunami evacuation. the August 8th, 2023 fires, the mud floods that Kihei frequently experiences, that they do not have a safe expeditious route to get out of Kihei. There's concerns for elderly family members that maybe their family living on other parts of the island can't get to them to help them. And kind of a sentiment that the transportation network in Kihei is frequently being disrupted, whether it's sinkholes or Mud, flooding, or, you know, I guess the most scariest for us in West Maui, fires, the recent tsunami evacuation. And so... I don't know if the wording needs to be exactly as they wanted it, which was require the development of the Malka bypass prior to or concurrent with the development of parcels Malka of Pe'ilani. From looking at the recommended changes, I think if it were to go forward, we would change prior to to before for plain language. But Chair Lee, go ahead.

Can I ask the Director of Public Works the status of the MOCA bypass? Because that was supposed to be a state project. Can you tell us where that stands right now?

Okay, just a clarification. When we went to the site visit of the Kihei Mauka location, a lot of the public testified that they had envisioned along the top of the Kihei Mauka development a bypass, I guess, that would connect to Mokulele or the Veterans Highway. So I'm not sure if it's the same Mauka bypass that the state wanted, but just queuing it up for Director Molina so he kind of knows what we're talking about. Go ahead, Director.

Yeah, so any amount of bypass for Pilani Highway is, my understanding, a state initiative at this point, and I'm not aware that any progress has started on that effort. From the long-range transportation plan, I know the focus for the state on these bigger bypass roads has been Paia for a long time, and, of course, the Lahaina bypass.

So it would have been a state project is what you're saying?

Yeah, at this point, I'm not aware the county put forward that it would be developing that road.

So I'd say it's hard for us to say require because we can't require the state to build that bypass. It's a major undertaking, very expensive. So support encourage other than require for me. I think Mr. Cook had his hand up. Mr. Cook?

Thank you, Chair. Director Molina? Being creative, I think getting it on paper and getting it agreed the landowners we've spoken with being the principal ranches are in agreement because it's affecting their subdivisions their future developments so as far as right-of-ways and i think from dhhl their ag lots off of the mokolele highway they have a plan for a road going to their kamalani mauka that they bought from a and b so Is it possible for the county to participate in a mapping out of a road preliminarily with the state to get ahead of it, to identify areas where people would cooperate and where that road could go? that would go a long ways towards satisfying the community's concern and then making it a real reality even though it is a major financial endeavor it may and you could give me feedback on this it may also assist the state if we had easements and they wouldn't have to fight to get the road through and be more of a financial thing. Does any of that make sense? That's what the community is asking for.

Are you asking about the potential about requiring an easement and supporting a Malka bypass? I think one of the other ones was to... One of the other policies we had was about early... Encourage early... Shoot, where is it? I can't find it. But is that kind of what you're talking about is like, since the landowners seem to be supportive of it requiring the easement to be set aside and supporting the development of the Mauka Bypass. Is that along the lines of what you were thinking, Member Cook?

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking, but basically to sort of a ground up community effort with working with the county and the landowners to get that on paper so that to facilitate the state doing that road in the future. And because just the landowners cooperating with an easement for their section, if it isn't really the state's not involved, the county's not involved, nobody else is really on the, not the hook, but on paper the saying yes we agree that this is needed nobody's making a financial commitment yet but they're making a acknowledging the fact that we need to plan it and it's a collaborative effort to do it director maybe maybe maybe rob could weigh in on this after the after director does okay director molina any um response to member cook's um proposal um yeah i'll say that um

Long-range transportation planning goes through the MPO, and so that would be a good first step to talk about this, because I'm not sure the extent to which this project's even in the long-range transportation plan at this point. and from there we can figure out how best to coordinate to go forward with this project in terms of what the county's capacity is um and what the state would like to see um supported um i am aware that with the paella bypass there is an effort by the npo to help facilitate um I don't know exactly it is, but basically there was disagreement on where the alignment and terminus for that will be. And the state kind of walked away because the community couldn't get it together to figure out, you know, a clear message to the state. And so it's come back to where the county, the MPO needs to step in to help facilitate that process. So I think something similar in South Maui could be leveraged for this effort.

Member Cook, did you also want to hear from transportation planner Minehart?

Yes, and also Rob.

Okay. Ms. Minehart, any comments on the proposal by Member Cook to requiring easement or some set-aside?

I would mirror what Director Molina said that Maui MPO would probably have greater input on that.

I don't believe it's in the Long Range Transportation Plan or in their current TIP, but I could be mistaken, so I would defer to them. Thank you. It's not in any of our planning. Sorry, it's not in any of our planning documents at this time.

Thank you. Planning, did MPO give you any notes regarding the Mauka Bypass at all? Okay. Mr. Weltman, would you like to, oh, Member Cook, did you have something else?

I did. I'm on the MPO and it isn't currently, but we were instructed that if it's something like an emergency exit necessity, then that could get it moved, that could get it put on. But what really helps get it put on, if there's a community support, one, there's the need Two, there's a community support. And then three, that basically the property more than likely won't be a battle to get it.

Because it's not currently developed and they're seeking entitlements.

Yeah, and fortunately, these landowners are very community-oriented. But I don't know how that would seep back. in their requirement before anything happens. It's really difficult for them to grant the land and build the road and do all of that before they've started anything.

Yeah, the CPAC verbiage was before or concurrent with... You wanna hear from Mr. Weltman at this point as to the perspective of CPAC when they proposed this specific requirement or policy?

Please. It was deleted at that point, but it was reintroduced as 3.4.5 in the proposal. And so it says, before or concurrent with development of North Kihei Mauka, there must be a two-lane collector road that connects directly from East Leopold Street to the Veterans Highway with an adjacent walking and biking path separated from the roadway by landscaping. And that's perfectly fine. So they just moved the policy.

Oh, they just moved it. They didn't simply delete it. Okay, we'll come back to that one then if everybody's okay with it. My bad, I should have gone straight to Mr. Weltman first.

I would have been screaming otherwise.

Okay. All right. So this concludes what we have for what we were given for 2.1 goal, a complete, balanced, efficient, and connected transportation network. As I stated earlier in the meeting, we're not precluded from adding our own policies. And as I said before this policy, what I took away from the previous testimonies from yesterday morning through the evening to this morning, there does seem to be a real fear about more evacuation routes for various situations. There was comment that there wasn't enough about coastal retreat or more aggressive wetland restoration, things like that. Does anyone have any policies they'd like to propose to be added to complete, balanced, efficient, and connected transportation network? Or do we think where we're at is good for complete, balanced, efficient, and connected transportation network? Member Cook thinks we're good. Member Shinichi.

I concur, Chair, but again, just having that evacuation routes, those were several testifiers last night brought up evacuation, and I think you expressed it very well that there was actually some fear of people that they're not, you know, feel safe about not having another access route. We did, one of the last testifiers spoke about, I think it was Oprah Winfrey's property, or in the past it was on private property. But again, that would have to go.

From McKenna Landing up to.

From McKenna, yeah, up Malka.

I was thinking along the same lines, and I think that that can also be addressed in either 2.2 or 2.3, although it deals with transportation, 2.2 is safe, healthy, livable communities for all. So if we're talking about a Malka evacuation, it could reasonably fall in 2.2. And then I was thinking about, you know, the infrastructure under South Maui or South Kihei Road, like for Lahaina, I think they're looking at trying to move our infrastructure under French Street to under Luakini or a more inland road. And I would like to float the possibility of that based on Ms. Wendy Makahele's testimony, but that could go under Ready and Resilient Systems. So it's not necessarily, complete, balanced, efficient, connected transportation network. It's more evacuation routes and coastal retreat kind of stuff. If people think that we're good for now on a complete, balanced, efficient, and connected transportation network, we can close up 2.1 for now and revisit it if there's anything people come up with between now and when we finish Section 2 overall.

I think the other testimony we heard last night too was just about traffic.

Gridlock.

Gridlock traffic in the afternoons and just if we're going to be, you know, with storms too. I've been trying to get, sometimes you get stuck. uh on south kihei road and you're trying to get mauka and because you know construction or closed streets and people get kind of jammed up all in those dead end streets there so i wonder if like in the moment kind of communications that might be more like contraflow or something so safe healthy livable right

Okay.

Thank you.

Member Cook, followed by Member Rollins-Fermandes, followed by Member Lee. Sorry, tripping over my tongue.

Thank you, Chair. Part of the panic when we had the tsunami, I think was people really didn't understand that they needed to get simply the higher ground. People were literally trying to get up to Pula, upcountry. And the hotels, I think they evacuated up to like the seventh floor. And so I just, I think our education and letting people know that different events have a different crisis. Sometimes like what, you know, staying off the road is the appropriate thing to do. So I just, I don't know. Anyway, I'm going to try and talk to our community about that because I've heard a couple of times like last night and it was just sort of like people were freaking out over nothing. All they had to do is get up to about a hundred foot elevation and just look at the sunset.

Yeah, same similar thing was expressed to us at our West Maui community plan meeting or West Maui community monthly meetings by MEMA that, you know, everybody getting on the road at the same time to do. And some people weren't even evacuating. They were going to get gas or, you know, doing other things. But in the moment, the important thing is to get out of the wash or the inundation zone. There are, I mean, used to have in telephone books, the tsunami maps, but telephone books are no longer really a thing. And so, I mean, I don't know if we have an easier way to communicate what the tsunami inundation zone is or an extreme tsunami inundation zone is. When Japan had their major earthquake, I lived right oceanfront and I went up to Kapalua Airport only to find out that George's house wasn't in the inundation zone. And so we were spending hours up at Kapalua Airport with hundreds of other people and we could have rode it out in the safety of his home with our own personal bathrooms. But you know, live and learn. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo chair. Okay. So 2.3.14 discusses safe evacuation during hazard events under 2.3 ready and resilient systems. So we wouldn't add that under transportation. It was not a regular transportation thing. Cause yeah, that's, what we heard and we'll take that up when we take up 2.3. But what I'm also hearing and I don't see, but I can wait till we get to 2.3 is just like more education.

Education and communication, I think as well.

Yeah, for preparedness. So just overall, yeah.

Mahalo, Chair. Thank you. Charlie?

Okay, so the Mauka Bypass was discussed almost 40 years ago when I was on the council and Governor Waihe'e and Cayetano were in office. And we came very close to identifying two routes, one to Pukalani from South Maui, one to Kula.

But Kula people were totally against it.

Yeah. and also against the Pukalani route. So what I'm trying to caution you folks when you say the community wants something you have to weigh that against what's best. Where is the better route in terms of public safety cost etc. that the community needs to have a voice but remember it cannot be the only voice that's one point i want to make the other point the bigger point to me is funding so if you're going to put a prerequisite on future mocha development with this bypass then nothing's going to happen because of the future development will not be able able to afford this bypass this is a huge undertaking that that really was the state's kuleana but nowadays it's going to be the state the county and the community working together so i just want to keep make sure you guys keep that in mind because our decisions are really the hard ones where we're going to have to take criticism in the end for what whatever we choose because there's no way we're going to satisfy and and please everybody so i just want to remind you of that and and i i the speakers before me started to talk in that direction and we all got to be realistic about this this is a huge undertaking and it's going to take a lot more than a few people in the community is going to take a lot more effort. Thank you.

Any further comments before we close up 2.1 for now? We can revisit if there are any additions members want to make before we close up Section 2 as a whole. Any objection to closing up 2.1 at this point?