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

Will the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting of 2020 September 16th, 2026, come to order. The time is now 9.02 a.m. This is the recessed reconvened meeting of September 15th, 2026. If everyone can please silence their cell phones or other noise-making devices, that would help our cause. 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 room, 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 Poulton, and I'll be your chair for today's DRIP committee meeting. Committee Vice Chair Nohelani Uu-Hodgins is excused. Member Kawanoe Batangan is excused. He should be joining us at about 10 o'clock today. Next up, we have Council Member Tom Cook. Aloha kakahiaka.

Aloha kakahiaka. I'm working from my home in Kihei today, and Feeling under the weather, but ready for today's meeting.

Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Are you alone in your workspace?

I'm alone in my workplace. My wife is alone. My wife, he can't go home, but I'm alone in this area.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have member Gabe Johnson. Aloha kakaiaka.

Aloha and good morning chair, council members, committee members. I'm here and ready to work. Thank you.

Thank you. And next up we have council chair Alice Lee. Aloha kakahiaka.

Aloha chair. I'm home alone in my workspace and if you go to Tonga this weekend you can say malo olele.

Malu olele. Next up we have council member Kiani Rollins Fernandez, Malo Olele, and Aloha Kakahiaka.

Aloha ka kaiaka chair, aloha ka kaiaka kākou, mai mōla kai nui ahina. I'm at my private residence alone in this room. My minor-aged daughter is home sick from school, so she's with me, just not in the same room right now, but she may be walking around.

Yeah, that's everything. Mahalo chair. Thank you. And next up, we have Council Member Shane Sinensi.

Aloha ka kaiaka chair, mai mōla kaiaka lilei.

and Council Member Yukile Sugimura is excused. This meeting of the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting of the Maui County Council is located on the traditional aina of the Kanaka OEB, 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 Hawaii 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 Reed, adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver's Durham College of Law. Generations of kanaka maoli and their knowledge systems have sustainably cared for Hawaii 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 various strategies that the indigenous people of Hawaii 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, we have Planning Director Jackie Takakura and Long Range Division Planner Karen Komcovich. From the Department of Public Works, we have Director Jordan Molina. From the Department of Transportation, we have Transportation Planner Julia Meinhart. From the Department of Housing, we have Director of Housing Remy Mitchell. From Department of Parks and Recreation, we have CIP Project Coordinator, William Frampton. From Department of Management, we have Executive Assistant, Noah Jackson. From Corporation Council, we have Deputy Corp Council, Nahulu Nunukawa, as well as Deputy Corp Council, Michael Hopper with us in person. The other resources we have is South Maui CPAC Chair, Rob Weltman, and South Maui CPAC Vice Chair, Daniel Kanahele. These resources were already designated under Rule 18A on September 15th. We also have DRIP Committee staff with us this morning, Senior Legislative Analyst James Krueger, as well as Legislative Analyst Jarrett Pasquale and Ryan Ramirez. We have Ambassador of Aloha Ryan Martin, Senior Committee Secretary Yvette Boutilier, and Legislative Attorney Karla Nakata. Oh, and we also have Deputy Director Kilkeye Robinson from Department of OEB Resources online as well. As a reminder, oral testimony on DRIP 25 was closed on September 15th, 2026, but written testimony will continue to be accepted. We have one item on today's agenda, DRIP 25 Bill 108-2026, a bill for an ordinance. amending section 2.8 OB.070 Maui County code to adopt the updated South Maui community plan to get us in the right mindset. And by request of our South Maui Sea Pack vice chair, I'll start us off with the South Maui vision statement draft 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 to get us in the mood. Yesterday, the committee left off on Policy 2.2.14, page 37 of the draft plan. There was an issue that was brought up by staff yesterday that I had meant to address, but I hadn't yet addressed it and I wanted to discuss with the committee how we wanted to handle things that are seemingly duplicative in, or, triplicative, I'm not sure, in the Maui Island Plan, Countywide Policy Plan, and also in the South Maui Community Plan. As planning gave us the presentation on Monday night, we know the hierarchy of plans. And if we can, if people can bust out their attachment 10A, and go to page 10 of attachment 10A. And we'll also be cross-referencing that with page 36 of your draft plan. So we're looking at attachment 10A, page 10. and South Maui draft plan page 36 and focusing in on policy 2.2.5. It was pointed out by our legislative attorney that this policy is pretty near the same in the South Maui Community Plan, which says support the creation of public campgrounds within the region. That was one of my favorites. Then we go to countywide policy plan G3A, which says identify and encourage the establishment of regulated and environmentally sound campgrounds. Then we go to the Maui Island Plan 663D, which says facilitate the development of well-managed non-commercial campgrounds throughout the islands. So I just wanted to get your feedback. It was mentioned that we don't wanna have the same verbiage in all three plans. I don't know if anyone wants to state the reason why we don't wanna have it in all three plans. Is that a lawyer planning question, do you think?

it's a planning question um it when we do project reviews we would be looking at all three plans and when there's too much duplication it just makes it longer and more complex and actually harder to get to what's actually desired so it would be better to have it in just the top two plans how ever it is also there could be an opportunity in the community plans to identify where the campgrounds would be supported in this case and i was looking i'm pretty sure that is in one of the action items

As well?

Well, just it's identified as a place for a campground. I'm trying to confirm that right now because it may have been something that changed.

And then another thing just to throw another dimension to this question I have for you members. If you look down at policy 2.2.8, which correlates to attachment 10A, page 12, the South Maui Community Plan is pretty similar to the Maui Island Plan on this. However, it's more like if you're doing varying degrees, whereas the Maui Island Plan says support the use of low impact development techniques such as those described in the state of Hawaii law, impact design practitioners guide June 2006 as amended South Maui community plan is like a degree More where it just says use instead of support the use it says use low impact designs. So Just wanting to get your feedback. I had thought maybe if they're super duplicative, we can pull it out and put it in an appendix. But I'm open to your guys' thoughts on how we handle policies that are duplicative or triplicative or whatever words you want to use. I saw Member Rollins-Fernandez had her hand up. Did you not anymore?

Yeah. I didn't see. So I did a Control F. on the document to look for camp in the action items and it didn't come up. So I don't know if maybe it's not there or it looks like Ms. Komkovic may have a response.

I found it. It is under 2.07. I also did campground and it's under campsites. It says 2.07 explore the feasibility of providing overnight campsites with restroom facilities within the region. The county-owned land by the police station is one possibility.

and my staff corrected me, it's Command F and not Control F. You could say redundant.

Redundant instead of duplicative, triplicative. Redundant, that's a good one. Is that everything, remember, Rollins-Fernandez? Charlie?

Did you say the subject came up because of staff's concern?

Yeah, that it's redundant and it makes the plans, I guess, more difficult to as they have it in a number of different places. It is sort of a policy call though. And so I didn't wanna be heavy handed and just say I don't care. I wanted to check in with all the little chickadees.

How much time would it take to review all of this redundancy?

2.2.5 and 2.2.8 are the first that we've really come across. So we don't have to backtrack to 2.1. Those were pointed out to us by Ms. Nakata.

I think she should go check on all the redundancy. Ask her to check on all the redundancies.

That is kind of her assignment, but the question is what we're gonna do with them. Do we wanna pull them out and put them in a separate appendix or do we wanna leave them out because they're already in other plans? Is that everything for you, Chair Lee? I can go to Member Cook and then Member Johnson if you're done with your.

Yeah, I'm done, thank you. Okay, Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to listen to the planning department and the review process. One of the challenges that I've witnessed over the years with the plans are subjective and not prescriptive. And the fact that the planning department is reviewing the verbiage and the intent of each one by them having to go through layers and decipher, well, is it different or the same and which one takes precedence? So I like the idea of an appendix, but that's not my arena. So I would like to yield to the planning department. By the same department, by the same thought, I would like to also make sure that the intent of the community plan And the work that they did is recognized. So I'm not supportive of just, oh, it's redundant, throw that out. But listening to the planners and enabling them to be more effective and efficient and implementing these plans that people are working hard on would be my intent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Cook. Member Johnson, followed by Member Sinensi.

Thank you, Chair. So if this is simply a policy question and debate, then I personally would like to keep it in because not everybody reads the South Maui Community Plan as well as this countywide plan, as well as the Maui Island Plan. It's kind of like ease of the reader. So if I'm reading just the South Maui Community Plan and it's in there, I get it. That's kind of my focus because I'm South Maui guy. You know, that's kind of the thinking I got. So I wouldn't mind having it in all of them because it's just easy for the reader. And if it's just a policy thing, that's the way I would look at it. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Member Sinensi?

If I can ask the CPAC.

Mr. Weltman, any guidance from us? Have you encountered this issue in the CPAC?

It was not an issue in the CPAC. We actually didn't look at the countywide or the island plan. We just looked at the draft plan for the community plan that was provided to us by the planning department. But I do want to point out something, though, that this particular the creation of public campgrounds is a good reason to maybe keep it because it's been in all these, for all this long, we still don't have public campgrounds and I think that's the concern that many people have is that this would be, it won't be taken into account if it's not there.

That's a good point. I mean, we've had Papalawa, I think, as a public campground, but we haven't had any new ones, and that one's been around for a long time, right? I mean, I don't know when it was created, but yeah. Oh, sorry, Member Sinensi, I didn't.

Okay, with those inputs, like should we maybe have more of a similar, I mean, they all have campgrounds in them. Should we make it more kind of unified in all three plants? I see the deputy shaking her head.

Planning department. It's better if the community plans are more specific to the area. For this one, I do agree with the chair that it's fine to keep it in. It does show support. Sorry, the chair of CPAC, not the chair of this meeting. There are some other ones that are very much just exactly what's in the countywide policy plan, and they're no more specific.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, going back to Member Cook, followed by Member Rollins-Fernandez.

I agree with Mr. Waldman that it does belong in here. And generally speaking, I stand by my first statement, but with the specificity, then it's definitely one to be in, so... And thank them for that. South Maui really does need it. This is a challenge for the community and the county because our unhoused issue and being able to camp. All of these sort of intertwine with public camping and the ability to be able to participate and have a safe place to spend outside and camp. So anyway, I'm looking forward to South Maui having a camp. Thank you.

Oh, me too. Okay, thank you. Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Mahalo, Chair. Since the camping policy was just an example to the broader question you were asking, I think... to make a blanket decision right now is what gives me pause. I think I'd prefer to take them up as they come up. And if it's verbatim, then perhaps we could remove it, especially if there's a corresponding action item to whatever that policy is. I think that if it's... something that the community really wants like campgrounds and haven't seen any movement on then perhaps we you know can leave it in um but i i guess my preference would be to just you know take up the redundancies um when they come up and then make a decision then instead of making one general you know policy on removing them.

And sure, sure. And then from the discussion, it seems like the specificity is in the community plan. So if there is a general policy in the countywide policy plan or the Maui Island plan, and then the South Maui community plan, is stronger for it or lesser for it, then that's not exactly the same. It's kind of like this is in the plans, but I think another example would be the gated communities. There was a discouraged gated communities in one of the broader plans. And I think in here they say prohibit, which is a degree stronger. Just like the low impact design, instead of support, it says use. 2.2.1 is also similar. to county-wide policy plan and MIP policies, but it's not very specific. So I don't know if we wanna... make it more specific to South Maui in those cases or make it a degree above or a degree below to mean that this is in the countywide policy plan, Maui Island policy plan, but South Maui says that's not enough. We need it to be more or we need it to be more specific and things like that. So, um, I'm supportive of leaving it in. If it is really, really similar, maybe we can denote by an asterisk or something like that. This is also very similar in the countywide policy plan and the Maui Island plan. but it's something that South Maui felt strongly about. So it being in all three plans with an asterisk maybe is like, you know, this is something folks really want and they don't want you to forget it. If we come across it and it's super similar to, we can say, we can check in with our resources and see if we wanna go more specific, if we want it to be stronger or less strong and things like that. So, that's really only come up in this 2.2.1, I mean 2.2 section of safe, healthy, livable communities for all. So, yes.

I'm supportive, Chair. I just wanted to add to the discussion the historical precedent. When you speak to Aukupuna, South Maui has always been a place in their summer vacations where they could, when they were kids, where they could go and camp along the beach. and fish when they had more fish down there. It just so happens now when we're looking at this plan and how developed South Maui has become, those old practices are not, you know, not for the next generation anymore. So I can be supportive, Chair.

Yeah, yeah, camping. I know a lot of people in those areas used to just get left at the beach to eat whatever was around on the shoreline back in the day, but nowadays there's not as much things to eat. Okay, so... the duplicative ones that we had already passed were 2.2.1, 2.2.5, and 2.2.8. 2.2.8 is, more strong than the other ones. 2.2.5 was a good point that despite it being in all three plans, we haven't seen any, so maybe put an asterisk. Do members feel okay with putting an asterisk at 2.2.5, 2.2.8, and then 2.2.1? Okay, we'll count that as kind of non-substantive. If it's a redundant one, we're gonna be putting asterisks and we'll kind of take it up on a case-by-case basis as well. Ms. Nakata, are you gonna flag for us or should we cross-reference all the documents going forwards?

Excuse me, yes, Chair Sathken, I try to flag those Just wants to check when, for instance, the comparison is something like support the use of versus use or discourage versus prohibit. Those aren't necessarily redundant. One is stronger than the other. And I don't know if you want those types of comparisons flagged as well.

Yes, please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Okay, does everyone feel comfortable with going forward in that matter, kind of taking it on a case by case and if we want to keep it in and it's redundant, just put an asterisk to denote that it is redundant and even if it's a degree above or below. Okay, great, great. Okay, so... That brings us back to page 37 of our draft booklet, which correlates to attachment three a page 23 and attachment 10 a page 16 for 2.2.14. Um, the main difference that I see is changes per drafting guideline takes out the phrase each condition and so instead of what it is being written in the draft book, It would say require new development and redevelopment projects to include shade trees, especially in parking lots and along streets. Adhere to the Maui counting planting plan to choose appropriate tree species and to determine proper planting, irrigation, and maintenance based on location for trees to grow to full canopy spread. So striking the three words each condition and I feel like that could be a non-substantive change or do you think it's substantive? That would require like a motion to amend.

Apologies, Chair, could you ask one more time? Is it the... Striking of the words, each condition and... Oh, I believe that is already included in the plan that... Oh, maybe it's not?

It's included, but the drafting guideline changes strikes it.

Oh, okay. Chair, if the committee's comfortable treating that as non-substantive, we can do that.

Okay, great, great. I think it looks like maybe just an error in transmission. Great. At this time, I did want to recognize that Council Member Kawanoe Batangan has joined us. Aloha kakahi a ka.

Aloha kakahi a ka, Chair. I am calling in from my office. I am alone in my office. I just had some technical difficulties getting my workstation set up prior to the meeting. So whenever we break, I'll be joining you guys up in the chamber.

Okay, awesome. Are you able to follow along with us? You have all your booklets and everything.

Okay, great.

So I don't have any recommendation for amendment to 2.2.14 besides that non-substantive striking of each condition and I'll open up the floor to the members if they have any recommendation for amendment on this policy. I do not. Okay. And looking at the other two plans, it looks like we're specifically calling out the Maui County Planting Plan. And so it looks significantly specific enough. Moving on to 2.2.15. I also think this could be non-substantive. It identified in action 2.2 is added on. And I think we were going to go through and not we, but planning staff was going through and correlating the action items with the policies. So we don't need a motion that's non-substantive. Okay, so I don't have any recommendation for amendment for 2.2.15 other than that non-substantive as we are correlating them to action items. Members, sit and see.

Mahalo, Chair. Excuse me. Just a discussion point, and maybe CPAC Vice Chair can add in. There are some times when either the state would move to remove some of the trees. I think last year they did remove some. I don't know if it was for fire mitigation or for safety. But... Just checking, Mr. Weltman, if there was a discussion about removing trees.

Or like when would it be appropriate to move them and when it would not be appropriate?

For safety and fire purposes.

I think there was some that was lifting up the sidewalk, I remember at one point, but then they were like historic trees maybe. Was that covered? Did you wanna ask Mr. Kanahele or Mr. Weltman?

Oh, is Mr. Kanahele on? You said vice chair.

He's the chair.

Oh, okay. Chair Weltman.

I don't remember discussing any policies around removing trees. There is some sensitivity, well, there is some sensitivity about removing trees, that's for sure in South Maui. People get up in arms when they want to remove trees, but on the other hand, we have trees falling down on the beach and they're a hazard and everyone knows that. I don't know if we need a policy about that though. Okay, thank you.

Does the planning staff know if the South Maui tree canopy plan talks about when trees become hazards, about how they should be addressed?

The South Maui community plan? canopy plan is an action item, so it has not been created yet. The urban forest management plan, which is currently being worked on, will address hazardous trees and maintenance of trees, like ones that lift sidewalks, that there are mitigating steps to both preserve the tree and create safe. And Jackie would also like to address this.

Thank you. So when the fire department removes trees, a lot of times those are not necessarily on streets or in parking lots, but they are typically in the special management area for Kihei area. And so at that time, we would give them best management practices or advise them on how to do that safely and with minimal impacts.

So do you think we need to add into this policy a formula or a guide on when to address or how to address hazardous trees or anything? Or is that kind of common sense on how to address that? like when to cut a tree or when not to cut a tree and other related actions that can be taken to address hazards. I have a HOA in West Maui that really wants to cut down some mature trees.

That's more appropriately addressed in something like an urban forest management plan or South Maui tree plan?

Okay, so when the South Maui tree canopy plan is created, it can be addressed as a part of that document.

Correct.

Okay. Does that satisfy your concern?

Yeah, and I only brought it up, Chair, because when they did remove those trees, it kind of created, as Mr. Weltman said, kind of created some uproar in the community, and so maybe part of it would just be public notice or letting the community know, hey, we're removing some of these dangerous trees, and just kind of, you know, it was...

Not well communicated.

Yeah, thank you.

What is the entity that will be creating the South Maui tree canopy plan? Will that be the arborist committee?

Tree plans currently float between departments. It kind of depends on who takes it up. The Department of Management is a good one if there's an action to address it. Pretty sure there is, I just can't find it right now.

Okay, Mr. Jackson, are you online?

Noah Jackson is online. Oh, there he is.

I'm sorry, I stepped, I took a phone call.

Can you repeat the question?

Sure, sure. We just wanted to make note that the South Maui Tree Canopy Plan is referenced in one of the policies. It hasn't yet been created, but we would like to ensure that when it does, that guidance is given on how to address if hazardous trees need to be removed, about public outreach and what happens if a tree is hazardous, like how it gets addressed. Because the policy states require new development, redevelopment, and county projects to abide by and participate in the implementation of the South Maui Tree Canopy Plan. And sometimes, for whatever reason the trees become a hazard about how we address it. So as the urban forest plan gets made or the South Maui Tree Academy plan, we just wanted to be sure or make a note to you that how guidance on how to address when trees become a hazard to the public in part of that plan.

Yes.

we can make a note to that do we want to reference the urban forestry plan since i just don't know exactly where the south mallet specific plan is at yeah it's an action to be created yet so i i just wanted to give a heads up that when it gets created we want to be sure to have guidance in there on how to address hazards like I think Ms. Komkowicz said there are other ways to mitigate instead of chopping them down and maybe exploring those first or something along those lines. Because one plumeria tree on Monday provided significant shade for like the 30 of us that were there and it made our life much more pleasant. So if we can save the trees in South Maui where it's, almost as hot as La Jaina. That'd be great.

Yeah, I can make a note of that. And I think... We already established though that will also be referenced in the urban forestry plan, correct?

We didn't necessarily establish that. Should we also add that to here in the South Maui tree canopy plan and the urban forestry forest plan or no?

It would be good to reference the Urban Forest Management Plan, which is He Nohona Ulu is the name of the plan. It's in draft form, but it will be adopted far before the South Maui Canopy Plan is.

Okay. Let me go to the members and then come back about how we can incorporate it into this policy. Member Batongan, followed by Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. I just have a question on implementation. This one might be for Corp Council. So if we're going to require new development, redevelopment and counting projects to abide by a plan that has not yet been created, what happens in the interim? So say we adopt this plan tomorrow and then a project comes up next week, but the South Maui Tree Academy plant is not available or will not be available until next year. would that prevent us from being able to move forward with say a complete street sidewalk or whatever whatever the proposed county project might be can remember butongan just to not freak the residents out there we're not accepting this tomorrow but theoretically yeah theoretically like how would a transition work

Mr. Hopper. I think that's a good question. A lot of these policies are not going to be implemented immediately. They would have to be implemented through ordinances. If you're talking about adoption of the plan, yes, you'd have to come up with a plan, have that adopted. And then note again, all of these policies don't apply with the force and effect of law to every single thing that can happen. you have to have it tied to a discretionary permit for the plan to apply directly. However, for I think policy statements like that, I would think the best way to implement that would be to come up with a plan and potentially adopt an ordinance stating how, when it would apply and to which development. So if you reference a plan that doesn't exist yet, I don't see how that could be used. I think if someone needed a discretionary permit, planning could maybe you know clarify but I think they would look at that say the plan doesn't exist yet so we don't have something to comply with so that that won't be self implementing to the extent that maybe you know other other language could be in certain cases so I think that's that's a good good way to point that out the plan itself isn't going to be self-executing with respect to every single statement there will potentially have to be work done after to have plans adopted, implemented by ordinance, and made applicable to those developments or whatever things you want to make it applicable to through an ordinance.

Understood, thank you very much.

Sure thing. Member Cook, followed by Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. My question's for planning. I don't know where this fits in, but allowing solar carports and parking lots in lieu of trees, having tree canopies, mandating the trees, but allowing the solar carports to be implemented, it does help with the heat gain and then meeting our... energy self-sufficiency goals. Right now to date from experience there's somewhat of a conflict when the trees are mandated and so but they tend to be grown radically for a variety of reasons. So anyway is that any place for us to put in the plan? I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you.

Ms. Komkiewicz? Solar canopies being allowed in parking lots is actually a zoning code. It's allowed by zoning. The community plan can support changes to zoning, but it would not necessarily automatically apply.

So it doesn't need to be here because it's already out. The planning department already can make the determination.

When it comes to ministerial permits, yes, zoning code.

Okay, thank you. That answers my question. Thank you, Chair.

Sure, I just wanted to follow up. would that be something that could also be included in the South Maui tree canopy plan? Like if a landowner wanted to put a solar carport and maybe offset the trees that were to be planted in the parking lot in another area like open space or along the border or things like that, would that, be something that could be suggested as part of the South Maui Tree Canopy Plan to be created?

That is zoning as well. It could be a recommendation to change zoning code. There may be recommendations in the Urban Forest Management Plan regarding how best to implement

Okay, or maybe somebody could write an ordinance for the zoning code to address that.

We are also updating Title 19 in the Planning Department, so engaging with that and recommending the changes.

Okay, thank you. That sounds like a course of action for everybody to remember and engage in. Go ahead, Member Johnson.

Thank you chair just a little bit of points of information so as we know the state's been doing some things and in regards to the shading of our urban areas there is the Kala Kala Nani urban and community forest program they give out grants they they publish this map and this map is really fascinating it shows how much shade is there South Maui has pretty decent amount of shade because it's more of a wealthy area nor North North you know, North Kihei, I guess is the term, very little shade, right? And then, so it's guided by the Hawaii Forest Action Plan, which is a state plan, you know, so that's in there and that's lovely. And then of course, every time we get affordable housing projects or any kind of projects coming in front of the body, we talk about the landscape plan and that's when I'm always advocating for better shade. So there is, I just wanted to throw that out there that, it sometimes can be like an equity issue about the shades and the tree tunnels and it seems like the wealthy neighborhoods get those and the low-income guys don't so and as you see in practice when there is shade and we're outside talking we go in under the tree to have that conversation so I'm always gonna support it how we put it in here I just I just wanted to bring it up as a point of information I think that's I also am looking at ways that we as a body can do this with resolutions to encourage folks to really look into having better shade. Just wanted to throw that out there for information because sometimes I feel like it just doesn't seem fair. And that's all. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. With that being said, question for planning. Do we wanna reference any other like urban forestry or any of the plans that Member Johnson mentioned in the interim before the South Maui Tree Canopy Plan is adopted?

I would recommend including Hainahona'ulu urban forest management plan, which is actually funded by couple of Nani So that would be a good addition Past that we do have an act the action for the urban or for the South my tree canopy plan Does have some specificity. So when we're visiting actions Adding to that could be beneficial Okay, so

it could go something like require new development, redevelopment and county projects to abide by and participate in the implementation of the South Maui Tree Canopy Plan identified in action 2.2 or the urban forestry plan that you mentioned until the South Maui Tree Canopy Plan is adopted. Okay, that sounds good. And of course, staff non-substantive and prettying it up. I'll entertain a motion to amend in that way.

So moved.

Moved by Member Johnson, seconded by Member Sinensi to essentially add that we'd like to follow the urban forest plan that was mentioned until such time that the South Maui Tree Canopy Plan is adopted. Any discussion? Member Lee.

Yeah. Just wanted to find out what would be the cost of, let's say an independent workforce housing developer to, um, abide by that plan. Do we have any idea or is it, is it not actually an actual requirement?

The South mind tree canopy plan has not yet been created. The urban forestry plan, um, I don't know, I mean, they have to have a landscape planting plan, so I don't know that it would be more expensive than that requirement, but I'm not, I only plant the trees when they have those pre-dug holes and they tell us come and you just plop it in.

I'm not a forestry person. My concern is always gonna be the cost. what we do to these projects or require other projects is going to add cost to the low income projects, which we don't wanna see. So I'm just curious how the wording is going to be mandatory or encouraging.

Well, this one is is a require, but the the plan hasn't been created yet. I did see member Johnson have his hand up. Maybe he has an answer for you because he plants stuff.

Yeah, thank you chair. And to address this, uh, Charlie, uh, the call Nani grant program has as of 2026 has over $9.1 million has been awarded to over 500 projects within the state. and as you probably heard you know they're doing it at schools a lot they're doing a lot of shade trees at schools so i mean it would be up to either uh the developer to go out and try to reach for those grants or even us when we talk about these projects in our in our committees we can say hey we haven't we have funds for that so there are grants out there states giving out 9.1 million dollars so i'm i'm not afraid to push for that thank you chair okay the nine million is where the whole state I'll read the words exactly. So Kaulunani has awarded grants to hundreds of nonprofit groups, schools, community organizations, parks, museums, and arbitoriums. As of 2026, over $9.1 million have been awarded to over 500 projects which have matched over $9.1 million in cash and in-kind contributions. So it sounds like it's statewide, but I'd probably have to get back to you on that, but it seems like according to them it is. That's the info I got for you.

Okay, thank you.

Chair Lee, did you need a roll call?

Yes.

Okay. Any further discussion on the motion to amend? Seeing none, staff, can you do a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair. Apologies. Let me just pull out my roll call vote sheets. Sure. Okay, thank you, Chair. Proceeding with roll call vote. Council Member Sugimura.

Oh, excuse.

Council Member Sinensi.

Yes.

Council Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Aye.

Council Chair Lee.

No.

Council Member Johnson. Yes. Council Member Cook. Aye. Council Member Patankhan. Aye. Aye. Committee Vice Chair, Uuhajans.

Excused.

Committee Chair, Paltin.

Aye.

Chair, you have six ayes, one no, two excused. Members Sugimura, Uuhajans, motion passes.

Thank you, members. Okay, moving along to policy 2.2.16. This one, there was a difference between the CPAC version and the Planning Commission version. And as the Planning Commission was the last to review the plan, it was the Planning Commission's version that made it into the draft plan on page 37. The CPAC's version was requiring new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate interconnected public greenways and multi-use paths throughout the project and connect to existing greenways and multi-use paths where feasible. this is where it kind of deviates. It says, public paths must remain open for connectivity and shall not be gated as opportunities arise, acquire parcels within cul-de-sacs for the incremental expansion of connectivity. So what the planning commission did was they took out that last sentence And the sentence before reads, greenways and paths must remain open for connectivity and must not be gated. So I do like the change that they made there where they took the shall and moved it to a must, which the CPAC took from a may and put it to shall. Planning Commission took the shall and put it to a must. but they took out as opportunities arise, acquire parcels within cul-de-sacs for the incremental expansion of connectivity. So I'm okay with it the way it is, but I'd like to hear from the other members if there are any elements of the CPAC version they want to bring back or if they would like to change it in other ways.

Chair Weltman?

Member Sinanti, you'd like to hear from CPAC Chair Weltman, okay?

Yes, the changes are okay except for the last one, which is very significant, actually. CPAC completed almost all of its work before the fires three years ago and you might have said back then who cares about these cul-de-sacs. I would think at this point everyone should care about the cul-de-sacs and about extending connectivity between them. So this is about people's lives and it's also even when there are no fires it's about people being able to move back and forth get to schools and shopping and things, and walkable, bikeable communities. This ties in with everything. My sense is just that the Planning Commission had no idea what we were talking about here, and that's why they removed it.

Planning? Maui Planning Commission removed that because they thought of it as an action to acquire parcels that provide opportunities to improve the connectivity of the transportation network, including roadways, greenways, and multi-use paths. That is an action item. It could also remain in the policy as something that's looked at during permit review.

So that portion that the Maui Planning Commission removed, they put it, or it is in an implementing action? It's action 1.15. Oh, okay, okay. Mr. Weltman, knowing that portion that they removed, they moved it to an action item 1.15. Does that satisfy your concern?

I'm sorry, just one second, I just wanna check out the.

For members reference, it's page 117 of your draft plan. And it looks pretty much word for word with a high priority. but cost to be determined.

Yes, that's fine. That's good. It says I missed that, it was moved to an action.

Sure, no problem, so did I. Okay, so I don't have any recommendation for changing policy 2.5.

I would really like that cul-de-sac language in there because that's very specific and that's something which otherwise is not really considered. It's a very specific thing that's very important for I think people's lives.

When we get to 1.15, do you have any issue with us adding in the cul-de-sac portion? like to say like especially cul-de-sacs or something like that? That would be fine to add that. Okay. Staff, can you make a note so that we don't forget it when we get to 1.15?

Thank you, Chair Yes, we have it noted down. Thank you.

Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for planning. How would this be implemented during review? Like, how would this impact when you're looking at a project? And it would be new projects, existing projects, existing projects requiring, requesting some changes. How would this play out?

primarily during the subdivision review process to ensure that land is set aside during development, or maybe the SMA major projects would also have that highlighted.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Member Cook. So I'm satisfied we can address the cul-de-sac portion of it in 1.15. And so the Mana'u wasn't just lost, it was transferred. Next up, 2.17. There's minor changes from the department's draft to the CPAC. They strengthen it by putting require that new development. Minor change from comprised to and composed of complete communities that meet daily needs. The Planning Commission added the words to the extent practicable. And then drafting guidelines made a separate sentence out of the last portion of that sentence to say incorporate convenient and safe mobility options, including walking, biking, and transit. I did notice that they left out for daily living in the draft plan booklet. So I'll say that as a non-substantive change just because it looks like it was just left out on accident maybe. So I guess the question is, are we okay with the, to the extent practicable portion added on by the planning commission? I mean, We're requiring that new development be pedestrian-oriented and composed of complete communities that meet residents' daily needs for daily living by providing a mix of land uses, housing close to jobs, services, schools, and recreation to the extent practicable. incorporate convenient and safe mobility options, including walking, biking, and transit. Does anyone have any members in NC?

I can be supportive without it, just to have more stronger language without it.

Okay, and I do see also Ms. Nakata has her hand raised. Is this one of the ones that are very similar?

Thank you, Chair. As with 2.2.16, it appears that a number of the higher level plans have portions of the policy already incorporated, maybe not stated right in this combined or succinct fashion. Greenways and paths remaining open for connectivity and not being gated is not covered. The only gated language in the other two plans pertains to gated communities. And in 2.2.17, it's required as opposed to promote in the Maui Island plan. So SAC just wanted to raise that. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any objection to adding asterisk to 2.2.16 and 2.2.17 as they are a bit redundant of the other plans? Okay. Member Batongan?

Thank you, Joe. What does the asterisk represent?

Sure. Right before you came on, we had a discussion. Planning's preference is that, you know, in Attachment 10A, we see each policy's alignment with the Maui Island Plan and the countywide policy plan. And some of the policies that we went over are... redundant of those higher level plans and ultimately for like the support the creation of public campgrounds, which is really similar to the other two. But despite being in the Maui Island plan and the countywide policy plan for however many years, South Maui still doesn't have any public campgrounds. And so, Ultimately for these cases where they're redundant, we've so far supported leaving it in there and just denoting with an asterisk that it's kind of redundant but they really want it and it hasn't come to fruition. to the extent that the community may have expected. And so although it's redundant, they still want it in the South Maui Community Plan, even though it may not exactly follow planning principles of saying the same thing in all the plans.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. And then for the department, can I ask what the rationale was for adding it to the extent practical in the Mario Planning Commission draft.

Oh, it looks like Mr. Hopper might answer you if that's all right.

I think director may have some more input on this as well, but I think the idea is that that would allow, I mean, with all of these, they're discretionary permits generally, and I think that would, If it's I think the issue is you wouldn't want there to be a statement that this is impossible Therefore you could never grant a development that doesn't do all of these exact items. I think in practice. That's how it's going to work anyway that the that the discretionary agency is going to look to review that and see to what extent it's possible to provide a mix of land use and housing close to jobs, things like that. The zoning might not allow for a mix of land use. There could be other issues. So I think that was the idea for the extent practicable language. I don't recall this discussion specifically at the commission, but I think that that's generally why you would put in language like that for a policy.

Okay, so if we take out that phrase to the extent practical and somebody put in for a permit that could not comply with all of the stated requirements, would they have grounds to then sue if the department granted the permit?

i don't this was not about litigation it's about if you have a proposal for an affordable housing development that say in wailea it's not close to schools but it's close to good jobs so that would still be an appropriate location even though it doesn't meet everything there might be a better look another location that meets most of them it's just it's to allow

to happen even if it is not a perfect everything's not perfect he also wants to speak yeah i'd like to add to this this was an ongoing conversation of require versus encourage and um by including this this wording about to the extent practical uh it was kind of a um a consensus that at least it's an in-between because then the developer has to show why it's not practicable versus just saying encourage. By having this to the extent practicable, the applicant has to show that, hey, we tried looking for how we could meet this requirement and there has to be a good reason why they can't. So it's not gonna be a deal breaker like the word require could be, but at least they have to go through the work of showing that they at least tried to meet this particular policy.

Thank you. Okay. So I guess, I mean, I know there's no motion on the floor, Chair, but just so everybody knows where my head is at, I'm comfortable with the asterisk and I'm comfortable with that phrase being added. So at least it requires a good faith effort. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, I did wanna clarify as well that I think Mr. Hopper said with or without that phrase on, did you say discretionary permit, if they can't meet all of them, the decision may be made that it's not practicable and if that's the way it goes, I'd rather be upfront with the community reading this plan that they know if it's not practicable, that it could still potentially be approved. Is that what I heard? Whether we have the phrase in or not, that's how it will be treated.

I think yes to an extent, but keep in mind that this would be language. You could have a situation where you could have interveners or others challenging an approval, and the departments or a given board or commission's review of this, it could still end up being appealed, go to a court, and a court may say in a given case. you know this this is not allowed or this is allowed based on on the language so I think in practice yes I think it's feasible at an agency would say okay you don't need all these requirements but we're still going to approve you I think to the extent practicable is more clearly reflective of of how how it would be viewed But without that language, there's, you know, I think that there's a greater risk that, I mean, is it something where you would say, there's not a mix of land uses in this development, therefore it's inconsistent with the community plan. Is that what you mean by this? So that's, I don't think that was necessarily the intent. So I would just consider that, and then to the extent practicable, I think allows potential flexibility in those cases.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Weltman, something to add?

Yeah, I don't see why you would need that in the community plan, but not in the countywide policy plan or the Maui Island plan, because they don't do that. They just say develop, require, when developing, site community facilities and so on. And so I think I would rather not weaken the language.

Planning or Mr. Hopper, any response to why, to the extent practicable, was it in the Maui Island plan or a countywide policy plan?

I mean, do we want to go over, we can go over all of those policies and review them and, you know, apply them in those cases. But I'm saying with this policy, if you don't have that, there's certainly a risk that a given development, you would say, we have to deny this because there's not a mix of land uses or something like that. I mean, you know, I think that's why you would want that language in there to provide substantively with the boards, whatever a reviewing board would look at in approving the development. I mean, is it, if you don't have that language, do you think every new development will be able to fulfill all these requirements? If so, then, you know, that's, you know, you can consider without that language, but I think that was the intent of the language. Planning has anything to add, but that's, you know, that may be what you're looking at.

If you look at the accompanying policies from the countywide policy plan and the Maui Island plan, they say develop, promote, promote. There is require the development to be designed with a pedestrian in mind. That should just be required. Whereas the other promote livable communities, this one is a stronger policy, but it just has that caveat.

okay thank you um charlie yeah uh thank you i i am concerned about like i said whenever we use the word require because for for one thing a developer has property not necessarily near schools jobs transportation he has property where he has property To me, the better way to direct affordable workforce housing is when the county does it. But that's a different discussion. But the main thing is that I don't think the word require is necessary. I like the words to the extent practicable because I wanted to ask the planning director, What percentage of the South Maui Community Plan has been implemented?

All the... South Maui Community Plan hasn't been adopted yet. Are you referring to the Kihei Makena?

I'm talking about the existing one. I'm talking about anyone, actually.

Okay, so the existing one is called Kihei Makena.

Okay, that's not the point. The point is that any community plan has not been implemented, I would guess, not even up to 50%. Now, that's because it hasn't been funded. And why hasn't it been funded? That's our job. That's not the individual developer's job. It's our job. And we haven't been funding it. Every single budget session I've been through has not spent a lot of time on implementing the community plans. Maybe Molokai might be different, but almost everywhere else is the same. So can you tell me what percentage of the community plans on Maui Island have been implemented? and how much by private development and how much by county or state.

Thank you, Chair Lee. I'm looking at the Plan Implementation Division's 2025 Annual General Plan Implementation Report, which was transmitted in January of this year. And just looking at the cover letter, the Kihei Makena Community Plan from 1998 has 58 total actions. Out of how many? Well, there's 58 total actions in that plan, and I will have to research, let's see, community plan.

Okay, you don't have to answer right now if it's gonna take up too much time.

Yeah, I can get that to you after lunch, because we do have that report, so that data's there, I just gotta find, you know, for that particular community.

Okay, but you understand, Director, you understand my point, right?

Absolutely, yes.

Like, you know, the more we require, we're just adding to the list of things to do.

Yes.

So let's be realistic is my point. Okay, thank you, Chair.

Okay. So getting back to 2.2.17, does anyone have a motion to amend or shall we move on?

Sorry, Chair. Just for my own clarification, which version are you working off of? I'm working off of the CPAC draft, page 37.

Yeah. If you weren't here yesterday, what was mentioned is we already made a motion to adopt Bill 108. on first reading um and now we're going through policy by policy to amend um staff doesn't like us to do consensus or straw polling so if there is no motion to amend it is what it is in the draft plan does that make sense to you i think so sorry so the draft plan is the modeling planning commission version correct the book Shall we move on? There is no motion. No, there wasn't a motion.

Move to remove extent practicable.

There's been a motion by Member Sinensi to move to the extent practicable in 2.2.17 on page 37 of the draft plan. Is there a second?

If I get a second, I can. Second for discussion.

Second from Member Johnson. Discussion, Member Sinensi?

Thank you, Chair. I had asked to remove this for a stronger language. You know, with recent disasters, particularly the Lahaina fire access, we need more access. if it's near schools um we've seen the line of fire was during a school day and kids kids were sent some kids were sent home and parents weren't home and so having this access we just need you know these are their newer times greater disasters um The community spoke very strongly about emergency evacuations. And so just having any type of access, whether it be to the beach, back to the streets, through communities, through cul-de-sacs with no exits. For new development, this is still at their conceptual stage. So they can plan it out, they have the property, they can plan at the conceptual stages of their developments to include these. They're still, they're not built, already built. We're asking in this plan that with every new development,

um there be access for kids near schools um that's just a new the new way of safety for for communities thank you chair thank you any other uh member lee yeah i'll be voting no on the motion because um yes this is aspirational we need a lot of things for public safety for our children for our residents for everybody We just don't have the money right now. When we review new developments, the developers have a hard time just getting water and basic infrastructure. So the more we keep adding to the cost of development, the more we keep adding or making it almost impossible for our residents to afford these developments because we're adding expense. We're adding more and more cost and we already have the dubious distinction as the state of Hawaii being one of the worst places to do business and the highest cost of living and almost all the highest cost of housing. Now we have to take a look at the fundamental reasons why this is so. Even though we need a lot of things and want a lot of things, we have to get back to basics. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Matonga.

Thank you, Chair. So for me, it's not about money. It's about whether or not something is possible to comply with. And that's why I'm comfortable with changing the beginning language from support to require. But I want to keep the clause at the end to the extent practical. Because if I see this as a compromise between something that's aspirational and something that makes it impossible to be able to build in any way. I think the example that came up was a project site may not be near a school. So to have to provide housing close to a school would make it impossible for them to comply. I like the department's proposed compromise of adding that clause so that it would require proposals to show a good faith effort to comply with what we're asking of them. And so I will be voting against the amendment. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Batonga and Member Johnson.

The pedestrian danger index of Maui County is 70 out of 36, and the national address is 55. I don't think it's costing to try to keep our pedestrians safe. What's the cost of a life, right? We're not doing well in our safety. Let's just call a spade a spade. You know, we're doing... I'm just going to lay that there on a table. That should be enough to convince you. But I want to ask the department, we're getting this idea of aspirational versus a little bit more of a harder type of language. How is it that the county-wide policy plan as well as the Maui Island plan can use these words such as require? And here we are tiptoeing around the daisies trying to make it such a soft language. What's the big difference?

Planning? So the one that says require in the countywide policy plan is require development to be designed with a pedestrian mind. The part of the existing policy 2.2.17 that is not Included in the two extent practicable is the last sentence incorporate convenient safe mobility options including walking biking and transit the part that is to the extent practicable is Providing a mix of land uses housing close to job services schools and recreation the reason for that is because you might have a parcel up in like up in North Kihei, that's kind of far from businesses. It's still a developable parcel. There's no reason not to build that. But if there's a large project coming in, yes, they should be making this mix. But a single parcel might not be able to meet that. They should still incorporate the walking, biking, and transit.

Member Johnson, if you're... It sounds like pedestrian-oriented is a big part of your concern. We could try and split it into two, require that new developments be pedestrian-oriented, period. Maybe the next policy require complete communities that meet residents' needs for daily living by providing a mix of land use, housing close to jobs, services, schools and recreation to the extent practicable, incorporate convenient and safe mobility options including walking, biking and transit.

As a seconder, I'd be okay with that. I'd like to hear from Council Member Sinensi.

A little of my concern too is when the PE Lonnie promenade was under lawsuit, I think to stop it, um, at that time they didn't want the stacks zoning, which is the mix of land uses. Um, oftentimes, to our jealousy in West Maui, there are senior housing projects in South Maui. And I wouldn't say those need to be by schools because we should put not senior housing projects maybe by schools. I don't know, maybe some kids live with their grandparents. I'm not sure, but there are a lot of different unique situations. So I think To me, I do support requiring new developments to be pedestrian-oriented because of that stat you gave us, but the rest, I don't know that we can foresee all the various needs in the future or types of development at sometimes they might want it to be mixed land use in the P Lonnie Promenade case, it seemed they did not want it to be mixed land use. So, um, I, I'm okay with the extent practicable on the second part, but I do agree that new development should be pedestrian oriented. So, um, That's where we're at. I think you had a question to Member Sinensi.

You make a very valid point, and I'm malleable, so as a seconder, I'd like to hear from Council Member Sinensi.

Yeah, Mahalo, if it's, yeah, I'll be open to separating it, Chair.

Okay, and is the preference for us to make two separate policies, like a 2.2.17 and then split the second half off into a different number? Or would it be okay to all be still in the same policy?

I don't really have an opinion on that. I think it's fine the way it is. It could also be a good second policy. Although there's already other policies that are similar. This just strengthens what is this policy's intention.

Okay. So members in NC checking in, you're okay with a friendly amendment that says require that new developments be pedestrian oriented. require complete communities that meet residents needs for daily living by providing a mix of land uses, housing, close to jobs, services, schools and recreation to the extent practicable. Incorporate convenient and safe mobility options including walking, biking and transit.

Yeah, Chair, after listening to Ms. Komkovic and having those nearby mixed land uses, I mean, I would be open to when it's presentable, if those land uses are available, when they're presentable.

Can you clarify what you mean by presentable?

If the land use, the mixed land use is available,

I'm a little unclear on how that would work. To the extent practicable already calls for them to show that either you can't do it, or it is, or it can be done.

All right, just so that the discussion is that when there is available the mixed uses, then I can be supportive, Chair, thank you.

Okay, so we're on to that verbiage now. Chair Lee, you said you were not in support. In this case, it still has to the extent practicable. The part that will be required is pedestrian oriented and that's a lot in terms of the statistics that Member Johnson said for pedestrian safety. So Member Batonga and Chair Lee, it's slightly different. Is this something that you guys could support?

Yes, I can, but not available with the words to the extent practicable, right? Correct, yes. Yeah, the other one was kind of too general.

Okay, remember Batonga and you understand the difference as well.

Yes. Can I just hear back the language?

Sure. Require that new developments be pedestrian-oriented, period. Require complete communities that meet residents' needs for daily living by providing a mix of land uses, housing close to jobs, services, schools, and recreation to the extent practicable, incorporate convenient and safe mobility options, including walking, biking, and transit.

Thank you, Chair.

Is this a voice vote, folks? Okay, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. Chair, seven ayes, zero noes. To excuse members Sukumura and Uuhajans, motion passes.

Look at us, working together.

Love it when it's unanimous. Okay, a similar, oh, Ms. Takakura.

Thank you, Chair Paulton. I would like to point out with the general plan, HRS 201H for affordable housing does allow for, you don't have to do the general plan review, But HRS 205A, which is the special management area rules, or SMA, still requires consistency with the general plan. So if we had an affordable housing project, and it was in the SMA, and you had certain requirements that they could not meet, that would kill the project. So I just want to put that in your mind that if you require something, it may cause a project not to be developable. Say it's affordable housing. So because of that HRS 205A requirement. So just wanted to put that in your mind. Yeah, for SMA purposes, yes. Thank you.

Member Johnson had a clarifying.

Clarify, I've never, I don't know of any affordable housing projects in the SMA because I'm really familiar with the Lanai SMA, but does that happen?

Cahoma Villages.

Oh yeah, that would make sense. Okay, thanks for that. I just want to clarify.

Yeah, I would note that any discretionary permit would have to comply with this, not just the SMA. So any subdivision would have to comply with it. Any change in zoning would have to comply with it, et cetera. So it's any discretionary permit. I mean, I think fundamentally, don't say something that you don't want applied in that way. So I think that's what I think the director's sort of advising. You wouldn't want to have a project before you that you could think of where if it's a mandatory thing that would not allow you to approve something you think you may be able to approve of. So that's why the extent practicable language could be included in those cases. But if you have that restrictive language, the idea is you wouldn't necessarily wanna have a project in front of you that you think, yeah, this is a good project, but we can't approve it because this community plan policy says you shouldn't be doing that. So I think that's the idea.

Member Botonga.

Thank you, Chair. Okay, so Director, in this example, I guess, you know, hypothetical. So say a tool in each project came to us and asked for certain exemptions, one of them included not having to put in sidewalks. This language would prohibit us from being able to approve that project.

Thank you, Council Member Battangan. Regarding sidewalks, we do try to make sure that they do have sidewalks because everybody got to walk their dogs. But if they want to try to get some other exemption, because if they're in the SMA, we wouldn't be able to approve it because it wouldn't be consistent with the general plan.

So the only hard one is the requirement that it be pedestrian-oriented. The other ones, they have to... strive to meet. And if they cannot, then they have to explain why they cannot. Correct.

And so, yeah, sidewalks, I think that's pretty much included even in affordable housing, but like say it's in a, maybe a less developed area and it's not really close to other, like the mixed use, that might be hard for us to approve because then it wouldn't be consistent.

But the extents practicable portion of it still allows for a path forward.

Yes.

Okay, but they would just need to show why they couldn't get all the way there. They would still have to make an effort to comply.

Yes.

Okay, understood.

Okay, members, we've reached the halfway point of our morning session. Are there any objections to a 10-minute recess?

Nope.

No objections. No objections.

Okay, we'll return at 10.45 and I can do math, but I know you guys are gonna come back when you come back. So this meeting is in recess till 10.45. Will the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting return to order? The time is 1053. Thank you very much for that recess. Picking up where we left off, 2.2.18 is nearly identical to 2.2.17, but whereas 2.2.17 talks about developments, 2.2.18 talks about housing projects like affordable or workforce housing project. While the draft plan in the booklet, lays out each type 201H, 2.96, 2.97, the recommended change is to just call them what they are. Require affordable and workforce housing projects to be near jobs, centers, schools, transit, and services to the extent practicable. And then it goes on to say projects must include pedestrian-oriented design elements that create walkable and livable communities for all. So what's in the booklet calls them out by their numbers, 201H, 2.96, 2.97. I think the feeling was is if those numbers ever change, it would be called out affordable and workforce housing. Um, so I'll, uh, and then, you know, it was the same change from the CPAC to the MPC about the extent prod practicable. Um, My recommendation, or I will entertain an amendment to utilize the language in the recommended changes, which just calls it what it is, affordable and workforce housing projects, rather than seeing the numbers.

So moved.

Moved by Member Johnson. Second by Member Sinensi. Any discussion? I think we've already had the discussion about the importance of to the extent practicable. I a little bit feel like when we're in such dire need of housing and the different housing types, like what if it's a senior housing facility, does it still need to be near schools and just gives us a little flexibility at the time. it can be addressed through potential zoning change or whatnot. I think, oh shoot. After we take this vote, we can go back to Charlie's question before you may be surprised by the answer they dug up. But sticking on the subject that we're at now, any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, seven ayes, zero noes. To excuse members Uuhajins and Sugimura, motion passes.

Thank you. I spaced out that Director Takakura mentioned she has the answer to Chair Lee's question as to how many stuff has been something

Thank you, Chair Paulton. So the question was regarding the actions in the Kihei Makena Community Plan. And I'm very happy to say that only 12% have not begun. There are 34% which are complete, 21% which are ongoing, and 33% which are in progress. That doesn't mean we want more or a lot more, but yeah, there's a lot of good action on the progress.

Thank you. Over what period of time?

So this Kihei McKenna Community Plan would have started in 96, and so 96 to present. So yes.

How many years is that for that amount of projects? About 30 years. 30 years, okay. So I wouldn't be too proud of that record, but I'm glad that, you know, it took 30 years to do that many projects. And so my whole point is be careful how you keep adding projects and I'm not you director, but us. Be careful if we keep adding projects to the community plan, how likely are they going to be, you know, met? or implemented, that's my point. But thank you for checking, appreciate it. That's history.

Good job, but don't be too proud. Okay, moving right along to 2.2.19. And this is the first one. I don't have any recommendation for change. It's similar about extent practicable. It's about spreading and then equitably was taken out. So it now reads, require workforce housing units to be spread throughout the South Maui Community Plan sub areas to create diverse communities in all South Maui residential areas to the extent practicable. And if we didn't have the to the extent practicable, I imagine that it would have been conflicting because then if we wanted like, you know, in different sub areas that are not close to schools and things like that, I guess the one issue that I wanted to bring up is sub area six, which appears to be a majority open space or state conservation. So then, all sub areas, spread throughout South Maui community plan sub areas. Do we wanna limit that to sub area one through five? Because I know we said to the extent practicable, but I can't imagine in all that open space and conservation area that we'd want development, that's supposed to be an area of stability. Sorry, I'm referring to page 83 in your draft plan as it relates to this policy in particular. Planning.

It would be fine to add with the exception of sub area six. Oh, okay. Or you could put the actual name.

Yeah, because all the rest of the sub areas... I don't know, I mean, sub area one has a lot of open space and stuff like that, but I did hear that potentially Mr. Chang was interested in developing there. I don't know if y'all have any better luck. But okay, so what did the members think about, adding in with the exception of sub area six as that was denoted as an area of stability and it's mainly state conservation and open space and it seemed as though there wasn't intention to develop in the area and area. Are members okay? with a motion to amend that workforce housing unit space to be spread throughout the South Maui community plan sub areas except for sub area six to create diverse communities in all South Maui residential areas to the extent practicable or since there aren't residential areas in sub area six, does it matter? I guess, because we're talking about just residential areas. Or, I mean, if we don't want it to happen in subarea six, it's better to be specific.

So move.

Oh, okay. Moved by Member Sinensi, seconded by Member Cook. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, seven ayes, zero noes. To excuse Members Tsukimura and Uhu Hodgins, motion passes.

Okay, lovely. Moving on to 2.2.20. Before we do that one, the CPAC came up with one policy that was then, it looks like, deleted by the Maui Planning Commission. So that one is on Attachment 3A, page 26 on the top. And it had said, present all housing projects to a citizens committee nearest the project for their comments before submittal to the County of Maui for approval. Mr. Weltman, did you wanna let us know what the Community Plan Advisory Committee's thoughts were on this?

We have really good experience in South Maui with developers coming to the Kia Community Association presenting their plans before then going to the Planning Commission, but not in all cases. And we think it's really good. It really helps a project move forward faster if they have community input and community support rather than kind of bypassing the community. Obviously, there are projects holding information meetings, but that's not quite the same thing. So that's the difference, that's the distinction. People sometimes say, well, don't the developers already hold the information meetings? Yeah, but that's not quite the same. We think projects tend to move forward faster and better if they have community involvement. That's our thought.

Could you clarify what you see as the difference between presenting to a citizens committee versus an informational meeting? What would distinguish that? What would be the differentiation of a developer holding an informational meeting versus presenting to a citizens committee?

In South Maui, we actually have more than one. We have the Ma'alea Village Association, we have the Kia Community Association, we have the Wailea Resort Association. I think there's maybe one or two more. And so the idea is just that you present to all the ones that are adjacent to, in other words, you wouldn't need to present to the Wailea Resort Association if you're planning to build a Ma'alea, for example. That wouldn't make sense.

the specificity is the difference between an informational meeting and a presentation to a citizen committee. How are those different in your mind?

The public meetings I've been to in Kihei have been, informational meetings have been entirely different from the meetings where we've actually sat down with them. The Kihei Community Association sat down with them and talked to them. I mean, that's been more of a back and forth and very productive in general. I wouldn't say that's generally true of these information meetings, which tend to be more of a checkbox item.

Thank you. For planning, can you give us some of the flavor about why the Maui Planning Commission recommended to delete this policy?

The Kihei Community Association, Wa'alaia Community Association, Wa'alaia Community Association are non-governmental bodies, I think was part of the thought process behind it. It is The citizens committees are not defined either. That would need to be defined.

Okay. Like what if it was like encourage dialogue with community associations prior to submittal or before submittal to the County of Maui for approval? To the nearest... encourage all housing projects to present to the nearest community association to the to the community association nearest the project for their comments before submittal to the County of Maui for approval, something along those lines?

That would be better. If we were to make it a requirement, perhaps it would be better to update Maui County code if that was the will of the body. But again, this is inserting a non-governmental organization into the, requirements that the county, state or county requirements, so that's kind of awkward. Yeah, I mean, in my verbiage, it was encourage.

Yes. I'm open to feedback from the members. Oh, Mr. Weltman.

Just one comment. We have been told by I think two or maybe even three the directors of the planning department that this is department policy, that they ask the developers to go to the Kihei Community Association, for example, if it is a Kihei project.

Okay. Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. I think just that, that the department recommending outreach to the community groups, the policy just is a parallel. If you're gonna do something and you go to the planning commission, one of the first criteria is that you get contact everybody within a 500 foot radius of what you're doing. So there's, I think there's structures and rules in it, but having a non-governmental entity that's gonna change over time to be inserted into the general plan for 20 years, I think is a bit much. I'm supportive of doing exactly that, but I think putting it into the plan is not really necessary. My general overarching thing is the things we put into the plan that potentially could complicate or impede the review. And it's just sort of like somebody going like, did this happen? Did this happen? Did this happen? I want it all to be addressed. But the reason that a lot of the things, action items, didn't get included in the general plan, the GPAC that I was on many, many, many years ago, was some of them were pretty... and just sort of like, well, you need to do this. Why? It's a good idea. We think it's a good idea, but it's not really implementable. And the planning department at the time consistently said, look, this is gonna be really difficult for us to enforce, implement, and interpret. So I'm hopeful that the planning department would have a firm program policy that when people come in and they're going to apply to go to the Planning Commission, that people are going to apply for a permit for subdivisions, especially for major projects, that they're told, you know, you should go talk to these communities. And that would be conveyed the message and the intent without it being having somebody 15 years from now interpreting whether this particular action was done. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, planning, any response to that? Is there an internal policy that you folks have about encouraging development or housing projects to reach out to an area community association? I think encourage would be fine to include. Oh, okay, because you don't currently have that policy internally. I'm not aware. Okay, and then the other question I have is what if the area association dissolves, then it would be a moot point because it's dissolved. Is that how you would interpret it, Mr. Hopper? If, heaven forbid, Kihei Community Association dissolves, but... you know, who knows in the next 20, 30 years.

I think that's part of the concern about naming non-government organizations. Like if you say you have to go to the Urban Design Review Board or something, the council kind of has, the county has some control over, you know, whether that body exists or not. But if you put non-governmental organizations in there, that could be the concern. If it's encouraged... Mean, I guess you'd say you encouraged that and the organization didn't exist or something So I think that that would be okay if you said if you said require and then we're we're looking at sort of Potentially a different situation with that if you're looking at a non-governmental Agency, so I think that's the that's how I'd read those Okay in that case

I'll entertain a motion to amend by adding back in a policy that would read encourage all housing projects to present to an existing community association or organization nearest the project for their comments before submittal to the County of Maui for approval.

So moved.

Moved by Member Johnson, seconded by Member Sinensi. I see Ms. Nakata has her hand up and then I'll go to Member Cook. Ms. Nakata?

Yes, apologies, Chair. I just wanted to make sure that there was an understanding of what's meant by housing project. Is that a project of a particular size so you wouldn't be requiring a parcel that wanted to build a house? to present that project to the neighboring association. Just wanna make sure that planning has a good understanding of what's meant by that term. Thank you, Chair.

Oh, good idea. Planning, what would you consider the smallest project is? 10 houses? Or 10 units?

That would have to be defined.

Okay. I would add in housing projects of 10 units or greater. Because then they are subject to 2.96 if it's 10 or greater, right?

Yes.

Okay. So if the move on and the secondary would accept that clarifying friendly amendment.

Yes. And when it comes chance for discussion, I have some discussion. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Member Cook, do you mind if I go to Member Johnson first as the move on?

Actually, Chair, I was just pointing to... Ms. Nakata?

Correct.

Oh, OK, OK. Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. You know, sometimes these projects can get very contentious, and the fact that we would encourage folks to get ahead of the game, as a builder, I would say that's a good use of my time because it actually speeds up the project. So in a sense, like what Mr. Weltman was mentioning, we're kind of helping them. So I don't look at it as another layer of bureaucracy before anybody starts bringing up that. I just want to kind of squash it. I feel that this is... to engage a community is only gonna benefit the builder to come up with a better product.

Thank you, Chair.

And it was mentioned that sometimes informational meetings are a part of it. I guess my question wanted to clarify, could those meetings that they have with an existing community association also count as one of the required informational meetings that they're often required to have? Or would that be totally separate thing?

Thank you, Chair. If the project was presented to a citizens committee, we would count that unless you are going to be more specific in this policy.

Okay, okay. So, I mean, all right. Any further discussion on this proposed reinsertion? Member Batangan?

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask staff to read back the motion before us?

Thank you. Give me one second to pull up my notes. So it would be a new policy item and it would say, encourage all housing projects containing 10 units or greater to present to an existing community association or organization nearest the project for their comments before submittal to the County of Maui for approval.

And incorporating any non-subtantive changes and revisions to allow them to pretty it up.

I guess I'm supportive since it's encourage, but I also just want to encourage the department to create standard language across all community plan areas. I don't like the idea of there being things that apply to one community plan area in the county. I would rather that we have a comprehensive path forward for any proposed projects in Maui New. Thank you, Chair.

So we may need to update the countywide policy plan or the Maui Island plan. Certainly, yes. To do that. But maybe we get a bunch of them together and do it one time. Because do we need like a...

public hearing to update that yes okay so or if you just do it as part of your policies and procedures rather than into each of the community plans or the general plan i don't know i just but my my hope is for consistency yes uh if it has to be done through um an update so be it, but I'm just saying that that's what I would like to strive for.

Department? So maybe as part of this process, as we're finding things that would be good for the entire county, we can, maybe the county council can refer to us after this is over that here are some things that we can use to update the countywide policy plan, like you're saying, because we can certainly amend those documents, yes, and it would be a public hearing process, yes.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Member Rollins-Fernandez? Yes.

Hello, Chair.

I'm supportive of putting this policy in the countywide policy plan.

And I'm supportive of putting this into the South Maui community plan now. South Maui has had an active community association for a number of years now. And not all community plan areas have had that type of consistency with community associations, unfortunately. I think it's appropriate for this to be added here since there is one and there has been one.

That's part of the reason I put existing community association. If it doesn't exist, then the encouragement is not there. Sorry, my bad. Any further discussion on this adding back in?

Chair, I apologize. Maybe for further clarification, maybe we could, the body could consider saying existing community association or citizens organization.

I'm okay with that. Are members okay with that as a friendly amendment? Okay. Or citizen organization. Okay. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, I'm seeing seven ayes, zero nos, two excused. Members Uuhajins and Tsukimura, motion passes.

Okay, good work, Gangi. Moving on to the previously numbered 2.2.0, no, 2.2.20, sorry, 2.2.20. The main difference I see here is in the last sentence, the CPAC version said affordable housing obligations must be met within the boundaries of the community plan sub area. Credits may not be used. MPC draft says encourage affordable housing obligations to be met within the boundaries of the community plan area. Sorry, that's the end result of the changes per drafting guidelines, but it's very similar to the MPC draft. So it goes from affordable housing obligations must be met within the boundaries of the community plan sub area. Credits may not be used to striking unless the project is to be developed exclusively as an affordable housing project that's stricken and it ends up with encourage affordable housing obligations to be met within the boundaries of the community plan area as a whole not the sub areas so um that's the current language I don't have a recommendation for amendment. Does anyone from the floor wanna recommend an amendment? Member Johnson.

I just have a question. The affordable housing obligations, is that the tax credits that we're discussing or is that the credits?

When you have 2.96 and you require 25% of the market rate to be affordable, that's the obligation. So if you have a 201H project and 50% plus one, that's the affordable obligation is my understanding, but I'm open to being corrected.

Chair, thank you. So during the planning commission process, the Department of Housing came and advised us that this would be inconsistent with 2.96 or 97, and the better path would be to update those parts of Maui County Code. So we don't want to create inconsistencies. Thank you.

Okay, fair enough. Thank you, Chair.

Member Sinensi, would you like to hear from the CPAC Chair?

Yes.

Okay. Mr. Weltman?

So I don't know what the best way to go forward as far as modifying the code would be, but we're disappointed to see that new developments like that core are not providing any affordable housing within their area. And I talked to Karen yesterday and she was of a different opinion, but I read the FEIS and it says that they will meet their requirements partly through offsite affordable housing and partly through credits. In other words, they're buying credits. So they're basically buying their way out of housing for the workers that'll be actually working, maintaining those lots and servicing them, serving them food and doing all the things that they need to survive in that area. So we wanna find a way for developments to be more mixed and people with ancestry or people who work in those areas to also be able to live there.

Yes, sharing the frustration, this is something I think that we would need to amend in our code because we can't, we shouldn't write policies that are contradictory to the code. So if there is a strong desire to see this, which I mean I have a strong desire, For example, in West Maui, the Mahana Ridge project bought their way out of, Creating affordable housing. I mean it was from I think Dowling when he created the Leali Hawaiian homes And as we've heard Hawaiian homes uses the credits a lot but then it allows these luxury developments to then buy their way out of providing additional affordable housing, so I'm not sure overall what The solution is, but I don't think we can create policies that are directly oppositional to what our housing code section says. Is that true, Mr. Hopper?

There's the question that contradicting the existing code is problematic in that's the question The first thing would happen the code would change I think with credits there's also state law requirements that require recognition of credits in certain situations I thought I remembered looking at that for this policy, but yeah, that's that's generally an issue. I would also say not for market projects, but 201H projects could also get an exemption from both a county policy as well as a community plan policy. So that's another sort of wrinkle in there. If someone's a 201H, they could use the state law to exempt something that could be there. But yeah, generally speaking, I think that's both a legal issue and a common sense issue that if you've got an existing code without changing the code, it's difficult to implement the community plan language with that. That is an overarching policy thing. If you want to not allow or restrict the use of credits in 2.96 and 2.97, state law was a different issue, then I think you could look at that, but I think that should be a countywide change rather than putting it in the plan that contradicts the code. Unless you want to have that as part of a greater effort to get rid of that in the code, which I think some of that's within the council's discretion.

So if we wanted to change the code, we could put this in the South Maui Community Plan right now, or we gotta change the code first?

I guess you can maybe have a policy statement against credits as a policy. Of course, you're the council, so it's a little odd to put that in a plan when you control that. So that would seem to be you would do that thing. But trying to restrict it only in South Maui and say you can't use credits in South Maui when 2.96 doesn't have that change, that's... I would work on them concurrently if that's an issue rather than just put it in the plan and think you can't use credits only here and You know that that would only apply again to discretionary permits if you just needed a you know certain number of building permits for those units and that you could potentially not have to comply with the plan or if it's a 201H. So yeah, I think comprehensively that's a bigger issue. Also the blanket statement credits cannot be used could be problematic when you deal with state credits. So I think that needs to be thought about. and I think that's why the changes were made.

Okay, so if anybody prefers the CPAC draft version, we'd ask that you get started drafting amendments to the existing ordinance. Is that a good statement to make? Okay, so other than that, at this time we'll leave it as it is, We're following the county code. Some of us don't like the county code and we also have the ability to amend the county code and so that's the avenue to take to get to the CPAC version because otherwise it's wonky. Any objection to moving on? Okay. 2.2.21 on page 38 of the draft plan says support missing middle housing types such as Ohana, duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhouse, courtyard apartments, bungalow court, live work units, and smaller starter homes to meet the growing demand for a diversity of housing options and affordability. The main changes here is smaller starter homes and then drafting guideline changes. I don't have any recommended revisions or amendments. I would just say that this policy supports what we're doing in the phasing out of STRs because it points out that housings of all types, shapes, sizes, locations, affordability levels are needed. So I just wanted to point that out. I did have a a question about the difference between duplex, triplex, fourplex, and townhouses. I understand duplex is two, triplex is three, fourplex is four. What's the difference between those and a townhouse? Condominium, I think, is a ownership model, like condominium property regime, but I'm not sure what, like, is a duplex not a townhouse? Not sure.

We're gonna look at the definition in 1904. Oh, okay.

And then when you hit a fourplex, if it's not part of a larger development project, is that even allowed currently on a single parcel lot? Because I thought with the fire code and stuff like that, when you go beyond three, that something happens.

When you go beyond three, it might trigger sprinkler requirements. Oh, okay. That's also the size of the house can trigger that as well.

Okay, so I mean us supporting it just means we support it. It doesn't mean it's not possible. It might be a little bit expensive because you got to do sprinklers.

And as Corporation Council Hopper mentioned, policies can also support changes to code. Okay.

All right. Did anyone else have... Oh, Member Sinensi.

Just a question, Chair, for the department. All of these are all viable zones for construction. It doesn't require to increase density in some of these proposals?

It depends on the zoning district, but all of these are allowed in the South Miami Community Plan in different areas. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing as I just had a question, we can move on. 2.2.22. There was no change other than like numbers. after the CPAC draft. So, I don't have any recommended amendments. Just wanted to check that the addition made by the CPAC and encourage the development of complete communities is encouraging DHHL to develop as a complete community. Is that what it was meant, Mr. Weltman? That we're encouraging Department of Hawaiian Homelands to develop complete communities.

I actually read that as being parallel. Support this and support that.

Oh.

Hmm. I agree that that's how it reads, but I do believe the intention was to encourage Department of Hawaiian Homelands to create complete communities.

Do you recall, Mr. Weltman, if the CPAC's intention was to encourage DHHL to develop complete communities?

Sorry, I don't remember that discussion.

Okay.

It was a motion made by Cody and I did speak with him afterwards about that. And that was the intention.

That was the intention. Okay. Um. Do members have any objection to trying to clarify that it would be support the development of homes by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands and encourage them as a priority in South Maui and encourage DHHL to develop complete communities? Obviously, DHHL is exempt from county permitting zoning requirements, but we can always encourage them if that's a... something that the members want. I see Member Rollins Fernandez has her hand up.

Mahalo Chair. So by complete communities in this context, was the CPAC asking for DHHL to have like commercial spaces and what is complete communities mean here? Planning.

I believe the intention was to have commercial spaces within. The proposed development in Puʻunene does actually have commercial spaces for the town that's proposed to be developed. Oh, sorry, Puʻlehunui. Thank you, Jackie.

Oh, thank you. Okay.

We'll start with Apu, I guess.

Okay. In Pulepunui, they are planning to have commercial spaces. Is that what you just said? Okay. So they're doing it anyway. Okay.

Okay. Member Sinensi.

Thank you, Chair. I am supportive of... I guess, creating more diverse communities in South Maui. And so Hawaiian Homes lends for that opportunity for some of our Native Hawaiian beneficiaries to live in this area. I know oftentimes we don't have representation in certain areas, so I'm supportive having having diverse communities with a voice and representation in South Maui. I'm in support, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. The question for the members is, do we want to clarify that the development of complete communities in this sentence is directed at DHHL, encouraging DHHL to develop the complete communities Do we just want to leave it as it is where it's not clear that that's what the intention is? Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Should it just be support the development of homes and complete communities by the HHL in the South Maui as the priority in South Maui?

Sold. Okay, the motion to amend is as stated by Member Rollins-Fernandez, seconded by Member Sinensi. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, seven ayes, zero noes. To excuse Members Uhu, Hodgins, and Sugimura, motion passes.

Great wordsmithing there. Okay, moving on.

Your chickadees are getting hungry.

Oh. We still have 20 minutes to lunch. Did nobody feed this chickadee breakfast?

No. This chickadee is starving.

We're going to have to talk to that chickadee's caregiver. Okay. Let's see. I felt this was pretty consistent throughout. There were verbiage changes, but I kind of thought that what made it into the booklet for 2.2.23 was substantially the same. How do the members feel? Are there any motions from the floor to amend, no?

Actually, Chair, I like the proposed change from the drafting guideline column where it goes, it would change avoid impacts to avoid harms to wetlands.

Yeah, that is what made it into the... Oh, I call it mine then. Yeah. Sometimes it's not exactly like they missed a phrase or they left it in, but sometimes it is. So you just got to compare word for word. But yeah, I appreciate the changes made per drafting guidelines, and that is what's in the draft plan on page 38 to my... the best of my abilities. So if I'm reading the screen correctly, we'll move on to 2.2.24, which looks the same across the board, yay. So then I would recommend moving on This one, the next one, on our attachment 3A, page 29, the original language coming from the planning department was, all permitted affordable and workforce housing units that are required as part of a development approval must be completed before or at the same time as the rest of the project and cannot be separated to a later phase of the project. so um that was accepted as is by cpac and then it was deleted by maui planning commission um planning do we have any information as to why it was deleted or was it moved to a different section was it made into an action item can you give us some insight on that one truthfully i don't remember so i asked for staff to look it up for me

Oh, okay.

And then I guess maybe for Mr. Weltman, or not Mr. Weltman, because CPAC just kept it as it is, but for the planning department, when it says completed before or at the same time as the rest of the project and cannot be separated to a later phase of the project. Can you explain an example of how that would work out? Is it like Mahana Ridge where they bought credits from Leali'i? but the entirety of Kapalua Malka hasn't built out? What is meant by separated to a later phase of the project? as this originated from the planning department. But while you look into it, we can go to Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo Chair. I'm supportive of including this policy because it only applies to the projects that receive their approvals as a condition of building affordable housing at the same time, concurrent or before.

Is that a motion to amend and add it back in?

I'm happy to hear the discussion first to understand why it was removed and then I can make the motion after.

Okay. I did see Mr. Farm join the call. Is he the planner? He might have that information. Oh, okay. Mr. Farm, is that why you joined the call? Because you wanted to answer all our questions?

No, I'm just listening.

Oh, okay.

We encourage you to tune in and listen to what we're talking about.

We encourage folks to tune in and listen.

Can we get back to you guys after lunch on that one? Sure. Find out the background.

Okay. Either Member Rollins-Fernandez or Member Cook, anything to add? We can table this for now. No motion, but come back to it after lunch.

I was just going to add that sometimes the council may make a decision on like separating the project and I'm wondering if perhaps that conflict was one of the reasons it was removed and if it was one of the reasons it was removed that there could be language added at the end to just like remain consistent or recognize the hierarchy of, you know, approvals or amendments.

That's all. Sounds good and then Member Cook did you have anything you wanted to add before we come back to this after lunch?

I want clarity of which one we're working on.

Oh I'm sorry we're on attachment 3A page 29. the second one on the bottom, but we need more information so we can return to this one after lunch. It was a policy that was recommended by the Department of Planning, accepted by CPAC and deleted by the Planning Commission. But we need more information and we'll come back to it after lunch if that's okay with members. No motion to table or anything like that.

It's not on page 38. It's not on page 38 in the book that we received. It's only on attachment 3.

Page 29. You're welcome. I was like, ah. Same thing happened to me earlier. Okay, mahalo. Sorry, members. I don't mean to make anyone be ah. Okay, moving along.

Hello, my chair, I'm going to have to leave a few minutes early to make a meeting with court counsel. So I'm going to be heading out in a couple of minutes.

Okay. No problem. Um. In, um. Oh, I'm sorry. Here, here we go. Also on attachment 3A, page 29, right above the one that we went. I guess I skipped over it, so my bad. It was consistent from the department's recommendation all the way through. And so I don't have any recommended amendments for 2.2.24. If anyone from the floor. Seeing none, moving on. 3A page 30, attachment 3A page 30, which correlates to draft plan page 38. The difference was between prohibit and discourage. And then... I think on-site was changed to within the project area, but then the recommended change just took it to, which isn't included in page 38. What it says in the recommended is, discourage new transient units, and then adding a new one that says require developments with high-end and luxury homes to provide the required workforce housing within the project area. So the recommendation is to kind of split it into two distinct policies. The major change from the first one is from prohibit to discourage. Member Cook.

I'm just caught up some reading.

Oh, okay. Member Batongan.

Thank you, Chair. For Corp Council, the proposed new requirement to require developments or the new draft policy to require developments with high-end and luxury homes to provide the required workforce housing within the project area. Does this get back to the question of the use of credits?

Well, I think it's similar. It looks like it could be kind of a 2.96 issue. It's required to be in the community plan area, as I understand it, but there's also other ways to satisfy the requirements. Yeah, so that's something I think you'd want to consider as a whole there. It might be a policy that the council wants to implement, but I don't think that's required by the current requirements.

Okay. Okay, Member Rawlings-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. So the department's draft sounds a little stronger than the recommended change, which is, and it kind of ties it to workforce housing. availability or inventory. So like prohibit new transient units and second homes until adequate workforce housing, public facilities and services are established to meet existing needs. And then the recommended changes just to like discourage new transient units broadly.

We could go back to the department's version for the first policy and then add in the second policy that they amended in the recommended changes. I'm assuming that it's legal because we were told the recommended changes were a collaboration between Planning, Corp Council and OEV Resources. So I would hope if there was good collaboration, they wouldn't recommend something that wasn't legal for us to do.

Any comments from planning? Thank you, Chair. You are correct. This rewording in the recommended changes column is from discussions with Corporation Council and the Commission. And I do want to point out for the South Maui Community Plan area, you know, in the short-term rental home chapter and in the bed and breakfast chapter, we don't have the maximum number of allowed permits. So people can still apply for short-term rental home permits and B&B permits in the South Maui Community Plan area. So on the one hand, we have that part of Maui County code that would allow people to apply because we haven't reached the cap. But then if we have in here that says prohibit, that kind of creates a conundrum that might be kind of confusing. So, I think this discouraged might be a safer option, unless you want to change 19.64 and 65 to reduce the caps to the existing. Just for you to think about or I don't I don't think that's correct though.

What was just stated because we adjusted the caps to what was currently operated.

So, unless. for all areas except South Maui. South Maui's still at 46.

Yeah, if I remember the way that went, Member King at the time anticipated the South Maui Community Plan coming up and wanted to have that discussion at that time. Even when we were doing height limits too, she had anticipated that the South Maui Community Plan was the next one up and wanted to save the discussion for this time if my memory serves correctly.

Okay. And then for second homes that was removed at the recommendation of Corp Council?

That was removed during the CPAC phase of it. Did you want to hear from Mr. Weltman as to their perspective? Mr. Weltman, do you recall the removal of second homes? When they removed second homes, they added that and required development of high-end and luxury to provide their required workforce housing on site. Mr. Weltman, do you remember the perspective of the CPAC in doing that action?

I don't remember, but I'm pretty sure it was on the recommendation from Corp Council.

Oh.

Okay. Carp Council. Do you remember? Lawyer giving them that recommendation.

Because I'm guessing, you know, like second homes is not really defined. And if we're going to, you know, say discourage new transient units, then perhaps we can include and, you know, homes left vacant for more than half the year or something like that. Because it's just discourage. It's not prohibit.

Yeah, I don't have anything to add with that. There were different deputies that advised at different times. I mean, we're talking about deleting second homes?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Why it was deleted?

Well, I could see legal issues with prohibiting second homes. That's like homeownership. So I think it's tough to further... I don't even know how we would do that. I mean, new transient units, yes, you have to go to the county to get approval for a transient unit. You don't even have to go to the county for an approval of buying a second home. I don't think we can regulate that and go and look at deeds. And if it's your second home, you have to sell it to someone else. So I could see that as being a legal issue there.

So, for planning department, when that was proposed, the prohibition of 2nd homes until adequate workforce housing meets the needs of the community. Do you have. The explanation or rationale behind proposing that.

There are a lot of 2nd homes being developed in South Maui. You can see it in the development proposals. What Corporation Council said is it is people can buy a second home at any time. But we would be reviewing this at the time of development. Your suggestions sounded well. The language might need to be worked on and truthfully. We weren't the ones who are making the final recommendations on the Department draft.

Sorry, but what she means is that we had a lot of staff turnover, and so we kind of inherited the draft, so we don't know the true origin. Sorry about that.

Yeah, no worries. So I guess for Mr. Weltman, is that I understand second homes may have been something the attorney at the time recommended be deleted. Did the CPAC have a conversation about their position on the continued development of homes that would remain vacant for more than half the year?

There was no extensive discussion about that. I'd have to say that we like the proposal from the planning department, but then when the Corp Council said that wouldn't fly, we said, okay. But our goal is not necessarily to reduce the number of second homes, but just to increase the number of possibilities for Maui residents and their children to get housing.

Okay. Mahalo, Chair.

Member Lee?

Are you going to start talking about the second part of it with regard to workforce housing, required workforce housing being part of the same property as the luxury homes? I'm open to if you want to discuss it. Okay, no, I just wondered, because we're not finished with the 1st, part of it.

Yeah, what the, the recommendation. to change what is in the book is to just split it into two different policies. So it would be prohibit new transient units period as one policy. And then their recommendation is to create a different second policy with required developments with high-end and luxury homes to provide the required workforce housing within the project area.

Yeah, that's what I was going to speak to. Not the first part.

Okay, what would you like to see?

Well, I would like to ask the person or persons who initiated that proposal. If that is realistic, because, you know, workforce housing, you have to meet certain income criteria. Now, In luxury home subdivisions, you have extremely high maintenance fees, insurance costs, all these additional costs, not just your mortgage. So what if the workforce housing person no longer can qualify because of those additional expenses? What happens in that case?

Did you want to ask that to a lawyer or the planning department? Also, I would love to tack on to that question. Is there a definition for high end or luxury homes? Okay.

Maybe Corp Council first.

Okay, Corp Council. So Chair Lee's question was if there's exorbitant HOA fees because this is high-end or luxury homes and that workforce housing has income limits so they may not be able to afford the high HOA fees or whatnot and then maybe after that for planning if we do have a definition for high-end and luxury homes. So, Mr. Hopper?

um yeah i i think the planning had wanted to sort of get to this after the break and look at this a bit more but um i don't think there's a direct definition of high-end luxury home in the code anywhere i think um certainly at planning commission conversations there's been sort of discussion that market rate homes are almost just by default luxury homes based on the pricing so it may be a good idea to distinguish what's the difference between a market rate home And a so called high end or luxury home, uh, in this, I think that would probably be a good good idea to have a distinction because, um, as expensive as market rate housing is. Do you intend that that market rate homes like ones in or other places or those luxury homes? Or is it distinguished from maybe a single family home in or something like that? So, but I don't think in this section, there's a specific definition. So there may be a good idea to think about that.

Okay. We'll let planning think over lunch. Member Cook, I see your hand raised.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. During lunch, too, I'd also like Corp Council and planning to review 2.2.24 by phasing out converting existing vacation rentals for long-term occupancy if that how that inner how that interacts with the council initiated rezoning for the h3 h4 that we're currently working on with hlu because it felt my understanding when we were doing that process that the south community south maori community plan which is in process now would be addressing and incorporating those and then the west maori community plan would be a separate one but they would uh that through that same process so i just wanted to be transparent and clear with what we're doing now how that's in how that's interacting and interfacing with what we have already sent to the Planning Commission. So thank you, Chair.

Sure. Ms. Komkowicz would like to address it at this time.

This policy shows that the CPAC supported the phase-out of multifamily and single-family homes to increase the inventory of long-term housing units.

So I think, um, question was for corporation council about the interaction of the action. The council is taking with the resolutions that we had sent to the planning commission regarding, um, some of the ones that wouldn't be phased out. But, um. I guess, you know, we, we did have a internal team discussion, uh, yesterday about proceeding with out the results from the planning commission and subsequent, um, council votes and, um. we understand this next reso that will be sent, their deadline to come back is January and the other deadline to come back is late November. And when we go over the areas of growth, what I, was planning on doing in response to community testimony was to go over the areas of growth for knowledge action just so that we get a good understanding of the proposals and then come back to it at a later time because all the hours of testimony and work done in member Uhu Hajin's committee and us sending it over to the planning commission. I didn't want to make any decisions ahead of giving them their full opportunity and then the council their full opportunity when they come back to make whatever decisions become made. So, in response to public testimony about pumping the brakes. That is the area that we will be slowing down is section three. It seemed like at first it seemed people were just upset with the whole entirety of the plan. But as testimony went on it, it seemed that they were upset with the amount of growth that was proposed versus the amount that was said to be needed. And so the course of action that I decided on was to continue on with policies and actions and the other things while reviewing the growth section but holding off on decision making at this time until we can get more clarity from the planning commission. That being said, we're seven minutes into our promised lunch break where some of our chickadees are very hungry and we don't want anyone to get hangry. So, um, and we did assign some working lunch items to planning and court counsel. So if there are no objections, I'd love for us to take our lunch break and return at 130. Objections. Okay. This meeting is in reset lunch recess and we'll return at 130. Will the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee return to order? The time is 1.36. Where we left off, we were going to get some feedback from planning and our lawyers, I believe, on item 2.23, 2.24, and... There was one earlier than that, which was, was it 2.2.18 that we had tabled? Although we may want to a little bit revisit 2.218 through 20. I wanted to also bring the members attention. We had a written testimony in from Cade's shooting and it has been uploaded, I believe, where they had pointed out some discrepancy that they saw and we would like to give our attorneys a chance to explain as well as whether or not between the housing department and the planning department who determines if the extent practicable has been met and things like that. So either planning or Corp Council, where would you like to pick up from where we left off?

I think I'm trying to keep track of our list, but I think 1 of the questions it would maybe help me if member cook could sort of clarify his question on policy 2.2.2 to my understanding was there was a question on how this would relate to. The council's consideration of zoning certain zoning ordinances that were working their way through the planning commission right now, but I'm trying to sort of pin down the specific question member cook had had with that. So I don't know if he could reiterate that or sort of be specific as to that question. I mean, the general advice I can can state is that until this is adopted in an ordinance, it's still a draft. So, you know, whatever zoning ordinances the Council would pass or consider before this is adopted would not have to comply with unadopted language that's not in an ordinance. Once this language becomes a community plan, and that becomes the updated community plan that is an ordinance that has a force and effect of law and all zoning ordinances are required to be consistent with the community plan. So with that framework, it'd be good to know if there's a specific question on those bills.

And to clarify, that's not 2.22, that's 2.24, I believe.

Thank you, Chair. So basically my question and concern, hope, that what we're doing now is in alignment with what we've done during the previous legislation that we've been doing over the last few months. The legislation we sent to the planning commission for them to respond to come back that the council will then review that's all just a work in progress and i understand that this is a work in progress i'm striving to during the tag it was determined discussed like the least amount of work for the planning department the least the most professional and straightforward way if a property is going to be rezoned and it needs to be comply with the community plan the sequence of doing that since we were in the process of potentially hasn't happened yet um rezoning from a1 to a from a1 to a2 to h3 to h4 and then updating that to be appropriate zoned in the community plan so my only request from planning and for council and from you chair is that nothing we're doing now is negating that this is all a work in progress the future we when we sent that to the planning commission it was a majority vote wasn't it was just that so i don't want to negate that doesn't mean that it's not going to be overruled when it comes back so the answer to your question is um sequencing um

We have until August 4th, 2027 to adopt this plan. The planning department commission has till like the end of November for the first resos we sent over likely to sometime in January for the second set of resos we just moved out of committee. So if we're giving all that work to the Volunteer Planning Commission, it would make sense not to pass out the entirety of the South Maui Community Plan until that work is finished into the next term. um because once the south maui community plan is adopted by ordinance there should be no changes for one year and so um i don't want to waste the planning commission's time or our time given how much days and hours we've spent on those other legislations. And so that's why my recommendation was to get through these things, which are kind of tedious, but doable. policies, action items, appendices, and things like that in this time that we've been given because it's hard to remember the discussions that we've had every other week for three hours. This focused time, I think, enables us to focus on the things we're doing and remember the conversations we had a little bit better. But if we want to seriously take into consideration the time we've spent on those other things, we need to wait until we get those back and make decisions which will be into the next term. So as long as that's understood, that's how we would proceed. Getting through all these other things and then holding off on the decisions that we would make in section three, not saying that we wouldn't, thoroughly review them during this time we've been given, but it's prudent to hold off on decisions for Section 3 in its entirety until we get that information back. Is that...

Chair, thank you very much. That's good explanation. I'm... Hold on a second. Sorry about that. As my responsibility to my community as the South Maori representative, there is a lot of focus on this issue and this process. The fact that you just described it, it is noted it is a work in progress. This isn't superseding anything. People don't have to freak out because it isn't like stamped during this process because it isn't

it's a work in progress so i'm just on record legislation clarifying the concern of my community and that um thank you for the clarification okay so yeah both are a work in progress and we have to try and sequence them so that um but i i believe also south maui had five years so the important thing is to sequence these things that are already in progress for sure. So that one doesn't supersede the other and we allow the processes that we've started in motion to play out.

Granted, and also that we don't just create a year lag also. So thank you, Chair, for the opportunity. I will, you know, I'm on record. My concern will address it. Thank you.

Okay. So then we left off on 2.2.25. I did want to point out that we did get email testimony from Keola Whitaker of Cage Shootie that focuses around 2.2.18, 19, and 20. Some of the concern was that some of the South Maui community plan policies are unique. in comparison to like say 2.96, it was also pointed out that 2.97 and 201H processes allow for exemptions of county code and like including community plan. So it could be exempted. Our attorney has said that the to the extent practicable language allows these projects to go forward. And Director Mitchell, who's here, has con... agreed that that is true um and then the question was raised who makes the determination um planning or housing and um director mitchell says planning makes the determination although housing projects go to housing both departments review it for compliance or housing has its own um things that it uh looks for and planning has its own things that it looks for so so um I don't know if Planning, Housing, or Corporation Council would like to give members a glimpse at how something like 2.2.18, 2.2.19, or 2.2.20 would work. There was also a concern, if you look at 2.2.19 and say 2.2.20, one says that the housing units be spread throughout the South Maui community plan sub areas. And it was pointed out that that could potentially conflict with encouraging affordable housing obligations to be met within the boundaries of the community plan. And then I think there was another one talking about within the same project area. And when there is things like that that are slightly different, how would you, oh, that's 2.2.25, which says required workforce housing within the project area. So here we're, in this one, we're requiring it within the project area. Then in 2.2.20, we're encouraging affordable housing obligations within the boundaries of the community plan area, which isn't really a conflict because the project area is within the community plan area. But... and then spread throughout the South Maui Community Plan sub areas to the extent practicable. So I guess the question is, how do you determine which of those three is the one that you are asking a developer, project developer for? if it's luxury, high-end, which we haven't defined to be in the project area, if it's affordable housing obligations within the boundaries of the community plan area, which is more specific than what I think 2.96 requires, or if it's spread throughout the South Maui community plan sub areas minus sub area six or something. So how do you determine like if a project were to come before you, where you're directing them to put the housing because each one says something slightly different and then within the community plan area, is not necessarily what 2.96 says. So I guess between planning and housing, if a project developer came to you with a big project, how do you determine where you're directing the developer to place the workforce or affordable housing from these policies in draft policies in the South Maui Community Plan?

Chair?

Yes.

Oh, while they're conferring, I'm at the Mulligan District Office alone in my side of the office for sunshine.

Thank you. And Member Johnson and Member Sinensee are now remote as well. So if you would let us know your disclosures.

Thank you, Chair. I'm alone in my office and here and ready to work. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Here at my private residence, I'm here by myself.

Thank you.

While Jackie's considering, All of these policies really speak to the South Maui community's desire to have affordable housing throughout the community plan area and especially where the high end homes are being built and in the newer subdivisions. The one that currently says throughout the community plan area did originally say sub area. So I'll let Jackie answer.

And then does that conflict if, say, the high-end luxury areas, we already mentioned that they may not be near schools and things like that. So to the extent practicable in that case is very important. And so we would exempt it from that requirement because there is another desire to see them spread throughout the sub areas. Is that kind of the thinking? Because it a little bit seems contradictory on face value.

Thank you, Chair. So a lot of times you'll see, even though there's no definition, but what seems to be more luxurious type of housing in Wailea and then the affordable is placed elsewhere, but really, I really agree with what Director Mitchell had said when he was at the Planning Commission that we don't want to create conflicts with Maui County Code. I was thinking if we had, say, an SM1 major project or some other project that had housing and we were to look at this, the developer would really have to show how they're meeting this. If it was a 201H and it was in the special management area and it wasn't consistent, it would be a deal breaker that that project couldn't be approved.

I thought 201Hs could request exemption from county.

But if it's in the special management area, sorry, I meant in the SMA. Then they cannot request exemption? Yeah, the SMA doesn't,

the community plan supersedes everything else?

Well, you must be consistent with the community plan. That's what 205 says.

Okay, and Director Mitchell, do you agree that between you and planning that you'll be able to navigate your way forward?

Thank you chair for the question. Um, I think the very first question you asked was procedural and. related to who reviews and who makes the determination. So the Department of Housing would focus largely on the language in the code as we administer 296 and 297. And so in response to your question, what we haven't actually said is, well, who reviews the plan, the community plan to ensure the project complies with that. Um, and I was hoping director would say that administratively. The Department of planning reviews the community plan to ensure that there is compliance and to the extent there is, um, this wiggle room language. Um, the to extent practicable language. that they would be ensuring that the developer had provided the evidence that it was impractical to do something so that they could move forward and improve the project. But I didn't quite hear that, so I'm pausing.

Director Takakura, do you concur with the process answer that Director Mitchell gave to the body? Director Mitchell is correct, unfortunately.

But I need to add that we are not the subject matter experts on 2.96 or 2.97, but yes, we would be responsible for the general plan consistency review. So a very complicated subject.

And as part of the maps review process, that could be occurring concurrently? Yes. Okay. And then, so say we have a development, it goes through maps and both Director Mitchell and Director Takakura are evaluating it. Director Mitchell is evaluating it for compliance with 2.96 or 2.97 or 201H, whatever have you from the housing side. Planning Department is reviewing it for consistency with, in this case, General Plan, South Maui Community Plan, and say it's not practicable to be near schools, but it does comply with spread throughout Community Plan sub-areas. And so then you would say not practicable, but it does meet this other policy requirement and then they go forward.

Yes. Okay.

I feel that's pretty clear. Do the members have any questions? Sorry, could you repeat that? So say a developer puts in an application for a project. Director Mitchell would, on maps, Director Mitchell would be reviewing the project for compliance with whatever section that it's been applied under, either 2.97, which is 100% affordable, 2.96, which is 25% of the market rate, or 201H, which is 50% plus one. That's his kuleana, reviewing that it's in compliance with the code and the housing sections. Director Takakura takes the same application off of maps and she's not reviewing it for that stuff. She's reviewing it for compliance with the general plan and the area community plan, which is South Maui. Now we have a guideline that says to the extent practicable, it needs to be near mixed use, schools, services, whatever have you. Like say it's in the Makena Mauka area or whatever, just theoretically example. When we went there, it looked like golf course was the main event. And so it's not near schools. It's not necessarily near mixed use or services. And then she would be reviewing it for this policy and say the project developer or landowner, that's where their land that they own is. And so that's to the extent practicable, so exempt it. But it does, however, meet another policy, which says that these units should be spread throughout the community plan subareas, except for the Ihikina'u one. that's kind of the hierarchy. It'll be exempted because it's not practicable because they only own this property. They don't own property near a school or what have you. But it's not that bad of a thing because another policy within the South Maui Community Plan asks to the extent practicable, be spread out throughout the South Maui Community Plan Um, sub areas, which is 2.2 point 19, so it'll meet 1 or the other.

Okay. So that part I understood the 1 where I. Think I still don't understand how. We resolved was that new proposal requiring that the workforce housing be developed within the project itself because I thought that's where we had the conflict with 2.97 or whatever that allowed for credits to be used.

Yeah, we, we haven't, um, we haven't voted on that yet. That's okay.

So, sorry, but that was the outstanding portion that I didn't understand how.

Yeah, we haven't resolved that yet. We just were backtracking based on late testimony we got. So if everyone is okay with, um, planning. planning and housing and the lawyers, I guess, kind of response to Cade Schuette's testimony, we can go back to 2.2.25 on attachment 3A, page 30 and page 38 of the draft plan, which was 2.2.25. that one split up the existing policy. The split policy was required developments with high-end and luxury homes to provide the required workforce housing within the project area. Yes, Mr. Hopper.

Sorry, I just wanted to add one more thing to what was just discussed. There was sort of a discussion of housing determines 2.96 compliance, planning determines community plan compliance.

Okay, so we're going back now, we're setting aside 2.2.5.

I just wanted to add one thing to that, which is that For the most part, those types, some cases that happens, but for the most part, those types of applications that have to comply with the community plan, the planning department may be making a recommendation on that. A lot of times, the final decision on compliance with the community plan, though, is done by the planning commission, or in many cases, the council. So if you're looking at a project that requires a zoning change or state district boundary amendment or a SMA permit the department will be making a recommendation but ultimate compliance with the plan and at least in the case of SMA permits the A legal challenge to that would be from a Planning Commission decision on compliance with the plan. So it's certainly true, I think, in application processing, the Planning Department would handle that aspect of it. But ultimately, it's the approving agency for those discretionary permits in areas. It could be the Public Works Department ultimately for subdivisions that would certainly rely on the Planning Department's recommendation. But the final approvals for a lot of those is not necessarily going to rest with a planning department final decision. So I just wanted to have that clarified for the record, because I do think that's important. Thank you.

Everybody understand Mr. Hopper's clarification? Okay, now we're gonna go back to Member Batonga's last question and pick up the required developments with high-end and luxury homes to provide the required workforce housing within the project area. I was thinking since we do not have a definition of high-end and luxury homes, would it be okay to say require developments, require housing developments to provide required workforce housing within the project area? But I mean, then is that a conflict between spread throughout the sub area or Yes, Director Mitchell, guide us.

Thank you, Chair. I don't want to presume to understand Member Patonga's question, but I think what is being asked is can you have in 2.2 25.25 a requirement that um the work for housing be within the project area but then in the code under 2.96040 that it can be satisfied in the community plan area And that, if I've framed the question correctly, that to me is a narrow legal question. Can you have a policy that's narrowly crafted in 2.25 that appears to conflict with the prescriptive language in Chapter 2.96? And in that regard, I would, assuming I've got the question correctly, I would defer to Deputy Corporation Council Hoppe to ask if one can do that.

Mr. Hopper, could one do that?

I think this is a case where that would, we discussed that for things like if the council wants to make a policy change where you can only do housing within developments, but A, you can only do housing units, and B, only within those developments. By far the best thing to do is to change 2.96 zoning ordinance to make that consistent. Um, or if it's only in the South Maui area, have that that that there I did discuss with deputy and we did not feel that this language is per se illegal because it does provide 1 of the, um. Methods that is allowed in 2.96. it's more restrictive. But rather than saying you can't do credits at all, which also has state law issues, this is saying that you have to, presumably this is saying you have to provide those units within the project areas. So I think that the answer would be, We can't say it's illegal, you know, to have this here and we'd have to figure out the best way to implement it. I do think high end and luxury home definitions would be beneficial, but a much more a policy that would make much more sense is to address this in 2.96. or other ordinance which is supposed to apply universally i'd also note that not necessarily will every housing development have to comply with the community plan in the event that it doesn't require a discretionary approval so i think there's conceivably cases where 2.96 would apply to a housing project but that this um this community plan policy might not so you may be missing some developments by not changing the code in that case so i think in discussion with mr nunakawa we we the the issue we had we've noted the issue with this this um the new language or the the separately carved out language but weren't weren't um to the point where we would say i don't think we can approve this as to formal legality so um you know that's where we're at

Did you say you don't think you could approve it to form in legality?

We're not to the point where we would refuse to approve this as to form in legality. I think that the language I think is okay. But despite those issues, it does require one of the methods to be used that's available. But there's a lot of... Just because all of those problems exist doesn't mean it's flat out illegal to say something like this on the plant. It may be... not the best idea, which is different than being illegal, I'd say.

Member Batonga, are you satisfied with your answer to the extent practicable?

Thank you, Chair. So he did address the question that I had had. I had understood the legal guidance that we received earlier when we were under like 2.2 point, to zero i think it was um slightly differently but it does it does raise the question that i had been trying to articulate so uh thank you mr hopper and then i see charlie's hand up well let me just do in what was uh what was just shared a little bit more i think the difference was that you're talking about prohibiting credits to be used in any situation which is a little different than saying we we want we want you to use one of these several methods to build your housing which again look you're you're

I think our position is still consistent that, yeah, this should be in the code and done in an ordinance that you would use to apply consistently.

Yeah, so my concerns are twofold. One is that we are addressing the larger question of when it's appropriate to utilize credits. And two, that we would be creating a standard that is only applicable to one community plan area. And I would prefer that this be something that is done countywide. But I'm still, again, stewing in what was just shared.

Stew away. Stew away. Carly?

Imagine the average person listening to this. They must be totally lost because I can see from the faces of everybody that at least half of us are confused with the answers we're getting. because they're not clear and they're not precise. It's maybe this and maybe that, and you can try this and you can try that. We need definitive answers in order to make good policy. So I'm hoping that we won't rely on the ambiguity that we've been getting. We need to have things more specific.

Mr. Hopper looks like he'd like to provide a response.

Yeah, I'll try to make it simpler. It's a bad idea, but I can't say it's necessarily illegal.

It's a bad idea, but it's not illegal.

Okay, so we shouldn't be doing something that's a bad idea, yet we're spending an awful lot of time on something that's a bad idea. We need to move on.

Okay, the chair will entertain a motion to strike from 2.2.25 and require the development of high-end and luxury homes to provide their required workforce housing within the project area. Moved by Member Batangan. Is there a second? Seconded by Member Cook. For my discussion, since I was entertaining that motion, this can be accomplished through a code change and that's the answer to it being a bad idea. Any of the nine of us could propose that code change and that would be a better idea than the bad idea that is not illegal. So discussion for the move on? Or did I cover it?

You covered it. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Any further discussion? Charlie?

Okay, I was trying to follow it. Can you repeat the first half of your motion?

So the provision would read, discourage new transient units, period.

Yeah, if you look at 2.2.25, it would be striking everything after units, starting with and. Okay.

So if you're looking at the, sorry, Chair, may I? Yes. So if you're looking at the matrix of the different draft versions.

Attachment 3A, page 30.

Thank you, Chair. So the proposal is to split the policy into two different policies. Chair is proposing that we adopt the first one, and then instead of adopting the second one now, that she encourages members to submit a code amendment to that effect.

Okay, I can support that. All right.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. I'm seeing six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members Rollins, Fernandez, Sugimura and Uhu Hodgins, motion passes.

Okay, moving on from a bad idea. So the next page we're on is Attachment 3A, page 31 at the top. This is a policy drafted by the CPAC. it was added or those employed in South Maui was added by the planning commission. I believe we did have testimony from Mr. Anderson on Monday night that he thought that this might be not legal, but let's hear from Mr. Hopper as to the legalities.

You're talking about 2.2.26. Correct. Um, I mean, you're in encouraging it. Um, but, um, yeah, in general, there's, there's. You may have to, I like to talk with our, um. Uh, Leo Council, who has advised housing for a long time on these issues. There are ways to potentially sort of finesse this. Um, but it's, uh, I think the current policy, um, you're encouraging preference programs. I would say to the extent permitted by law, maybe something to add there as well. Um, but I think there's ways to possibly state the policy without, um, you know, you know, making it mandatory and violating the law in each case.

And I think Member Johnson has participated in finessing actions, and so he may have something to add here indicated by his raised hand.

Thank you, Chair. First, one point of information. I do have a snoring doggy in the background, so I apologize for that. I just want to remind everybody Bill 40, which is Bill 40-2025 is already enacted. And it says, let me pull it up here. to the extent permitted by law the resident applicants selected by lottery must be ranked by total length of time each has been a resident of the county and the workforce housing units must be offered in order of the rankings once the waitlist has been exhausted all residents non-residents will be offered residential blah blah this is basically the lottery But we, that bill, this bill, it's an act is put on to the. Builder it before my bill 111 was put on to the county. I don't want to get down that road. You know, I tried real hard to get that. You guys know the story, but Bill 40. Does enact the residential preference, but the builder has to, you know, the developers run the lottery, but they rank it by brand. It says there, you know, to the extent permitted by law. So we cover that. And again, I'm going to remind everybody, a lot of this policy came out of the Washington DC model. And I always say it. There's a lawyer on every corner in D.C., so if this was illegal, they probably would have got sued by then. The Washington, D.C. guys are doing it. I just wanted to add that to the conversation. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, so if this language makes folks a little uncomfortable, I think Mr. Hopper's recommendation was to add to the extent permitted by law. If somebody wanted to add that, I'd entertain it. If not, I don't. Have a strong preference because it could be made legal and it's an encourage. So. Um, I'll leave it to the body on what they want to do there. 321. Did you want to make a motion?

No, Jared, I mean. Mr. Hopper mentions that there was some massaging that could be done with input from the deputy who advises housing. I'd be interested to hear what that might be. I don't know what the... So rather than take that action now, I'd rather put a pin in and ask that they come back to us with a recommendation.

Okay, do you have any, or unless you have a recommendation now on how we could finesse the language?

I mean, I think to the extent permitted by law would help, but I certainly don't have an objection to speak with, um, um, some that may have more experience on project by project conditions with this to see what their thought is. It looks like there were no changes recommended after our offices review. So I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but I do know in these cases we, um, that is a, that is an ongoing concern. So that consultation. I think if you wanna add to the extent permitted by law, I'd be okay with that as well, but certainly we could benefit from additional consultation.

I guess part of it is like, say a developer chooses three to five names for each house. And then in those three to five names, they would prioritize either current residents of South Maui or those employed in South Maui or residents with generational ties to the area. So say they pick five names who, and then I don't know the priority of those three, like what if three of the five, one has generational ties to the area, one is employed in the area, and one is a current resident of the area? I'm not sure how that would be prioritized if in that, three or five names chosen for one house, how the decision would be made. Maybe we need to prioritize which one is first. But Mr. Mitchell, any input?

Thank you, Chair, for the question. I would first say that to use the language to the extent permitted by law would be helpful. In part, because the goal is to create a residency preference program that is legal and that allows residents and particularly long term residents or residents with generational ties. If you can speak a little louder. The goal is to develop a residency preference policy for long-term residents or residents with generational ties that results in local residents benefiting from the huge investment in housing in the community. The Department of Housing has been looking at crafting a residency preference policy and has been talking with our HUD partners in particular. And their recommendation is to ensure that there's a variety of preferences, a matrix of preferences that doesn't lead to hyper discrimination of any one group. And they can be weighted. So crafting the policy is a bit of a challenge, but that's what we're looking into. And so that's why, as I initially said, adding the language to the extent permitted by law is helpful because ultimately that's what we're going to do. But I would shy away from picking one or two categories and saying it must be this one, because that's when you create a bit of a challenge for yourself. Thank you.

Member Alin Fernandes?