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

Bye.

Will the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting of September 17th come to order? The time is now 9.05 a.m. If everyone can please silence their cell phones or other noise-making devices, that will 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 Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting. Committee Vice Chair Nohe'u Hajin should be joining us shortly. We have in the chambers with us Council Member Kawanoe Batangan,

Aloha Kaka'iaka and Yorana Kako.

We have Council Member Cook should be joining us in a few in the chambers. We also have Council Member Gabe Johnson, Yorana, and Aloha Kaka'iaka.

Yorana Chair, Council Members, community members, there's no testifiers at the Lanai'i District Office and I'm here and ready to work. Thank you.

Thank you. And online we have Council Member Chair Alice Lee, Yorana, and Aloha Kaka'iaka.

Yorana and Aloha Kakahiaka. I have no one here except animals in my office space and looking forward to your meeting. Thank you.

Okay, Yorana to the animals. Aloha Kakahiaka and Yorana to Council Member Kiani Rawlings-Fernandez.

Aloha kakahiaka, Chair. Aloha kakahiaka kakou. I'm at my private residence, melting. It's so hot here. Alone, and there are no testifiers at the Molokai District Office. There is an OHA meeting at 10.30 that I was going to go check out, but also be on my phone for quorum, Chair, when we get back from our morning recess.

Okay, thank you. And in the chambers with us today, we have Council Member Shane Sinensi, Yorana, and Aloha Kakahiaka.

Aloha and Yorana, Chair. Happy to be here. No testifiers in Hana, but I may have to drop off at maybe around 3 o'clock today. Thank you.

and also last but not least council member yuki lei sugimura is excused this meeting of the disaster recovery international affairs and planning committee of the maui county council is located on the traditional aina of kanaka oibi who never ceded their sovereignty to the united states we recognize that her majesty queen lilyo kolani 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 United States, as documented in a 2021 scholarly article for the National Lawyers Guild Review by Andrew Reid, adjunct professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm 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 varied strategies that the Indigenous people of Hawai'i are using to protect their land and their communities and commit to dedicating time and resources to working in solidarity. From the Department of Planning, we have Planning Director Jackie Takakura. From the Department of Public Works, we have Director of Public Works Jordan Molina. From the Department of Environmental Management, we have Deputy Director Michael Peterson. From the Department of Fire and Public Safety, we have Deputy Fire Chief Gavin Fudioka and CIP Coordinator Michael Arasuni. From the Department of Management, we have Executive Assistant Noah Jackson. From the Department of OEV Resources, we have Deputy Director Keikai Robinson. From the Department of Parks and Recreation, we have CIP Coordinator Bill Frampton. From the Department of Water Supply, we have Planning Program Administrator Eva Blumenstein. From the Office of the Mayor, we have Economic Development Specialist Vernon Kalanikau. From Corporation Council, we have Deputy Corporation Council Nahulu Nunukawa, Deputy Corporation Council Michael Hopper. Other resources we have are South Maui CPAC Chair Rob Weltman and South Maui CPAC Vice Chair Daniel Kanahelen. Members, without objection, I will designate Mr. Weltman and Mr. Kanaheli as resource persons under Rule 18A of the Rules of the Council due to their knowledge and expertise as South Maui Community Plan Advisory Committee members. Thank you. We also have DRIP Committee staff with us this morning, Senior Legislative Analyst James Krueger and... Legislative Analyst Jarrett Pascual and Ryan Ramirez, Senior Committee Secretary Yvette Boutilier, Legislative Attorney Karla Nakata, Assistant Clerk Leigh Dineen, Ambassador of Aloha Ryan Martins. And on the agenda today, we have DRIP 25, Bill 108, South Maui Community Plan Update. I did want to read the draft vision statement to get everyone in the mood. 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. Okay, so as of yesterday, we have gone through Section 2 Policy Framework, Sections 2.1 and 2.2. For today's meeting, a presentation has been prepared by Mr. Kalanikawa as the committee begins its review of Sections 2.3 and 2.4 relating to Ready and Resilient Systems and Mauka to Makai Management Respect Malka to my watershed management to respectively. Um, as the committee continues, it's review members should refer to the following attachments for section two. That can also be found under granite case item number three. Attachment three, a matrix of recommendations and changes to the policies. Attachment 4, which has updated 2.4 and 2.5 introductions. And Attachment 10A, Matrix on South Maui Community Plan Policy Alignment with General Plan Policies. As a reminder, Granicus item number 10 is a document with a crosswalk of relative attachments and appendices that should be reviewed alongside each section. If the Granicus item is slow to load, you can also find all attachments individually on southmaui.org. wearemawi.org homepage under the Transmittal and Related Attachments tab. As a reminder, the main motion as amended recommending passage on first reading of Bill 108-2026 carries over from yesterday's meeting. Corp Council has requested a potential executive meeting, but the committee should ask any questions in the open meeting until a question is posed where it needs to be addressed in executive session. If Corp Council wants to enter an executive session, please state the justification. So at this time, We'd love to receive an opening presentation from Mr. Vernon Kalanikau. I believe you were also a member of the South Maui Community Plan Advisory Committee. So he's also kind of wearing a couple hats. He is... frequently he loads the area before and after large storm events. And I believe he has a drone and takes drone photography. So we had asked him, because of the difficulty in doing site visits, to some of the gulches because of the mix of private property, we asked if he could share with us some of his drone footage of these gulches. So that's the presentation on that. We'll get it queued up in just a sec here. Good morning, Mr. Kalanikau.

Good morning, Chair, and good morning, council members.

And as the presentation comes up, maybe you can just narrate for us what we're looking at. For members information, this upload can be found on Granicus number 17.

So do I keep pressing this to talk or when I let go?

It'll stay on.

It'll stay on?

Yeah, and you can just talk.

Okay, thank you. So the first slide is the Keauhua-Iwi Gouge. This gouge is north of, I still call it Mokulele Highway that connects to Piilani Highway. So this is the gouge that runs through the bare Monsanto Parcel, Maipono. also Kauna'ulu Ranch, and just for reference and perspective of this gulch, this gulch runs all the way above the Kula Community Center. This is the Vontamski Parcel of Mauka, and there's that big gulch next to it. This is that gulch that come down. That's how far that gulch run. Next slide, please. In this slide, so this gulch is supposed to empty out into Kiliapun. You can see that a lot of the water is on that north Kihei Road. September of last year, HDOT did dredge out that entire, that gulch, all the way to the bottom. and they also dug a waterway towards the Kealia Pond. And then here we had the Kona Low come up. So all that settlement came back down and fill that area up. So a lot of the water had a hard time getting to Kealia Pond because Kealia Pond is also high in settlement. So what happened, the water backed up. onto North Kihei Road here, and it crosses the road into all those condos at Sugar Beach. Each and every condo at Sugar Beach was impacted by the flood and mud. Next slide, please. Right next to that gouch is the Waiakoa Gouch. On the left of that gouch is the Bayer property, Monsanto. And on the right is the Kamalani Housing Complex. Next. This is the double bridge of the Waikou Stream. You guys are familiar with that. You can see how the settlement quickly builds up from that corner low number one. Next slide, please. You hardly can see this, but that's South Key Road covered with about three, four feet of sediment. That bridge, that Waiakoa Bridge is covered of the stream flow that comes from Mauka. Next slide, please. What you see there is the Waiakoa Bridge. though the river is actually running over the bridge. And that's because, just so you guys understand, when that bridge was built, it was meant to accommodate water only. The sediment and the debris came later, a few years later. So naturally, it's just gonna dam up and clog up that culvert and that bridge. Next slide. And when that happens and back up, it just fills up on South Key Road, it impacts the farmer's market, ABC store, Ululani Shave Ice, the tree businesses there. You're looking at about four feet of sediment that build up right on the right-hand side of the kiawe trees. Next slide. And I think we know the history, what happens when this side of South Maui floods. It's repeatedly erode. You see Kia Canoe Club, they gotta move their canoes across the street to Kenolea Park. That section on South Kia Road always washes out. And of course, our businesses there are always impacted. you know, how many times they gotta go clean that area. Next slide, please. Okay, the world-famous Kulani Haku'e Gauch, the granddaddy of them all. We're looking at Kaunulu Road. This always happens once a year. And it changes, sometimes it's not as bad, sometimes it's really bad. Next slide, please. This is the Kaleepolepo Park, the north side of Kaleepolepo Park. This park pretty much got wiped out, 50%, 60% of this park was washed away. They moved the canoes the day before. Good guess where they removed the canoe the day before. Because when you look, they never lost any canoes. It just was put in the right place. Next slide. That's Kalanihalkoe Bridge, you know, that's that bridge that has temporary bridge on top of the old South Kihei Road and it's elevated. But again, you see all the debris that builds up against that bridge. It was just only water coming down, not too bad, but because you look at that kiawe tree on the right-hand side in that muliwai, That's the kind of material that comes down from Malka. Settlement and debris. Clogs up this bridge, like the other bridges on South Kihiro. And it just backs up. And it just heads south and north on South Kihiro. That condo, I think it's Kihei Bay Vista, you can see how the settlement had built up on their property. That condo is built on about four feet of post and pier, and it's all filled up underneath. Next slide. You guys remember when the contractor late, late 2024, there was a project to remove sediment from Kulanihakoi. Approximately 120,000 cubic yards was removed at that time. That's about, if you know the dump trucks, they can take 15 to 20 cubic yards of load. That's about 8,000 truckloads to remove the sediment from Kulani-Hakoi right here. What came back down from the corner low number one, approximately 80 to 90,000 cubic yards came back down. Almost... what we took out not too long ago. That's crazy, yeah. So next slide. This is, you can see how the water flow goes out because the bridge cannot accommodate flow to get out to the ocean, so it goes around both sides of the bridge. Next slide.

What bridge was that? Sorry.

Oh, try again, Chair.

What bridge is this?

Oh, Kulani-Hakoi. We still like Kulani-Hakoi. Okay, thank you. Sure. Next slide. What happens, some of the settlement from Kulani-Hakoi flood makes its way south, south direction on South Kihei Road. You can see here the whale sanctuary. And in the entrance of the whale sanctuary, they build a high concrete bar just to keep bloodwaters and sediment from coming into their property. It still never worked. It went into their property. That building has a basement underneath. That basement was filled up with mud and debris underneath that building. Next slide. This is Kulani Hakoi. Just stare at that picture and you look mauka. You can kind of see how the stream go. These projects, these development should not be there. There's no way that that river was meant to make on sharp right and a sharp left. That bugger went straight. Just give you that perspective. So what you see in the middle is it created like an island of mud. That right there in the middle is about four feet higher than the properties that you see surrounding this gulch, this area. So if it was to rain like today or tomorrow, like really hard, that water will be running on higher grade, not lower grade. So that means the water just gonna run higher than what we see at the bottom there. Just thought I'd share that with you guys. Next slide. That's Haleakalā Gardens on your right. When this all dried up in a couple days, Haleakalā Garden, the settlement in the gouch is about three feet high from the Haleakalā Gardens Foundation. So that's a concern. Next slide. To your right, that condo, you can see the cars, the water moved those cars around on top of each other, stacked. So that's Kulani-Hakoi. Next slide. So this one, I hope we can play this video, Chair and Jarrett, because this will show you Waipuilani and why it floods the way it floods. Is that Jared with the thing just slow or? Okay, if it's choppy, that's okay. So this project here or this resident area is the Kamalia Elena project, the Bessel Brother project. This is across Kauhalimakai on Selkie Road. I wish we could see a steady flow. You can freeze it there. So what you guys saw with the housing project, that's built on Poulsen Pier, about three feet high. What we're looking at is part of the Waipuilani gulch, where the water's supposed to go. You can continue the slide, I'm hoping it plays. And then what we're gonna see coming up is the Waipuilani gulch. And you can freeze it there. So Waipulani Gouch was, it was cleaned out, I'm gonna say maybe a year prior to the Konolo. What happened here, we get about eight to 10 feet of sediment that came from Mauka. This river, this Kahawai comes from Laue Pueo Drive of Waihuli Homestead. If you guys know what happened up there, to that kahawai, that gulch. And this is where all that stuff came from. So when you look at this, how the water comes down, it goes through that property, the kiawe trees, and it also makes a right-hand turn on the bottom. That's the future North-South Collector Road. And it just goes, it just does its thing. Wherever the water can find its way, it just goes. You can continue. But you know, that's eight to 10 feet of sediment. So here the water goes to the, does its thing, and then you can freeze it. And then you're gonna see in the middle of the slide, how the water break through the fence line of this neighborhood. And it goes through the neighborhood. But as you see in the kiawe trees, it's gonna start to narrow. Narrow and what you're gonna see is, that's the Waipuilani stream that ends up on South Key Road. You can continue. Okay, Jared, you can freeze that. Okay, where you see water right here, on your right, that's the retention basin for the Kamali Elena neighborhood. That's their retention basin. You can see on your right hand side how it crosses over that fence line. On the left side of that fence, that's the Waipuilani Kahawai. You see how skinny it became? To how wide it was mauka. So the capacity for that skinny part of the Kahawai, you can see the retaining wall in that housing project next door, that neighborhood. that's almost to the top of the retaining wall. That retaining wall is about nine feet high. So the water no more someplace to go, right? So it broke through that neighborhood on your right hand side. You can continue. And you can see how skinny that Waipualani stream is on your left-hand side. So some of the flow from Waipulani, now I'm gonna take that back, a lot of the flow from Waipulani does go south on South Key Road. It actually ends up down by Yee's Orchard near McDonald's. So what you're seeing is our land, Parks and Rec. This is all wetlands. All these condos built in the wetlands. And Jared, you can freeze. And so right ahead of you is the project that Cody Nemet works on. So play a little bit of that, Jared and Freeze. Okay, you can freeze there. So you see how you get that two buildings in the middle and then kind of get like one waterway. That's Cody's project. So Cody's project had had received a lot of the water, South Key Road, a lot of it. You see those those housing right there? They have gates, floodgates up. Now I've never had the housing and the floodgates. A lot of that water from South Key Road would exit where it is supposed to go, into that wetland. So Cody's project had helped out a lot. I think it would be worse on settlement buildup. He can continue. But you can see how that wetland worked and how the waterways wouldn't break open. You can see how the water move on South Key Road. It's going north, all the way to Kalani-Hakoe Gulch. You guys looking at a housing area that was all wetlands. So the question becomes, what can we do? It's all built on top. The water doesn't have a place to go. Okay, so that was that. And then the next slide is just a couple of slides that I'll show you guys from the ground level. This is Waipualani Stream. Remember that stream that comes down? There's no way this can accommodate. But I'd like you guys to know that when this was built in the 30s, 40s, yeah, it was meant to accommodate water from the wetlands. It was not meant to accommodate what we get coming down the Mauna right now. But if we had the wetlands across the street, this would not have happened. It would stay on the wetland. Next. So this is the house right behind that stream. That's the kind of settlement that we have on South Key Road. Each and every time we have a flood. Next. This is the Kalepo Lepo Park, the south side, next to the whale sanctuary. You have two springs on this part. Whenever Mauka is raining really hard, the springs break open like they're supposed to. In this case, the springs wouldn't break open, plus we had surface runoff that ran through this part. Parks reached out to me, what would my recommendation be? I recommend that we not cover the springs. We just let the water be water. because it's just no feel right that we're gonna cover a natural living, breathing resource that needs to be open and express its purpose and kuleana to the area. So what parks did is they just corded off the area and have a nice sign that it's closed, respect the spraying and the natural resources. So the park can stay like that. Same with the other one on the north side. Next slide. The very next day after the flood, I believe the next day, they just wanted to open up pathways so people can get in and out from the condos or residence. But you can see how much settlement build up on this area. This is in front Koa Lagoon and Menehune Shores on South Key Road. Next slide. Just a continuation in front of Menehune Shores. But this gives you an idea what it looks like on South Key Road from the whale sanctuary to almost Yee's Orchard. Next slide. This is Waikou Bridge, the one by Key Canoe Club ABC store. So the water ran above the bridge. The river was on top of the bridge. Next slide. So you see that perspective of when they started to do the work, you can see how high and how much debris builds up in this area all the time when there's a major flooding. Next slide. So prior to this flooding, Public Works had cleaned this out. Um, this is all taken down to the ground level because there's a next to it. There's, um, you know, parking space for key canoe club or users for the beach. So they always clean that place up so you can see how much of the how high of the settlement had piled up in this area. It's crazy. Next. This is the Kalepo-Lepo Park north side. There's a lot of work had to be done, because under the entire lane, one side of the lane was washed out underneath the asphalt. So, yeah. Next. So we had a bus stop, sidewalk was gone. And in this park, there's two major springs too that's still alive and well with mauka, rains hard. And you guys understand that it can't rain mauka and not rain in Kihei. And it floods because the water ends up through our gulches and also in our springs anyway, so. Next slide. This is across ABC Store next to Key Canoe Club and the Kihei Pier, the bus station there.

Next slide.

So that's it. Kind of gives you an idea. You see that excavator is sitting on the grade of the river itself when it should be much lower. But that's all I have, Chair and Council. Just give you guys an idea what we have in South Maui.

Thank you very much. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I neglected to ask you folks to designate Mr. Kalanikawa as a resource because he was a member of the CPAC, South Maui CPAC under Rule 18A. After the fact, do you guys mind us designating him as well? No objections, Chair. Thank you.

No objections.

I also wanted to introduce Committee Vice Chair Nohe Lani'u'u-Hodgins, Yorana, and Aloha Kakahiaka.

Your Honor, Chair, and everyone, thank you very much, Vernon, for that presentation. That was wild to see. Thank you for your photos. Anyways, aloha. I'm at my private residence. My husband is at home with me, William Koa Hodgins, and I'm looking forward to this meeting. I'm sorry I missed the last few days. I was in a conference, but hopefully I can catch up where you folks left off.

Thank you. Thank you. And from South Maui, we also have Council Member Tom Cook, Aloha kakahiaka, and Yorana.

Sorry for my delay in coming. And I'm working from my private residence in Kihei. My wife and my son are both home ill. And I'm alone downstairs in the dining room by the mango tree.

Okay. Pray for speedy recovery. Ohana Cook household. Do we have any opening comments from planning? I think either Director Takakura or Planner Five Komkowicz, any opening remarks? We can't hear you if you're speaking. I was speaking, I didn't have my mic down.

Thank you. I just wanted to say we're excited to start working with you guys on Section 2.3. This is a really impactful section regarding the impacts of water in Kihei. And thank you, Vernon, for coming today and sharing that with us.

Thank you.

Same here. Thank you. Thank you, Vernon.

Any opening remarks from Corporation Council?

Not at this time, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to public testimony for DRIP 25. Written testimony is encouraged and can be submitted via the e-comment link at maui-county.us backslash agendas. Testifiers wanting to provide oral testimony should join the online meeting via the Microsoft Teams link printed on today's agenda or call into the phone number, which is also on today's agenda. For individuals wishing to testify via Teams, please raise your hand by clicking on the raise your hand button near the top right of your screen. For those calling in, please follow the prompts via phone. Staff will add names to the testifier list in the order that testifiers sign up or raise their hands. For those on Teams, staff will lower your hand once your name is added. Staff will then call the name you're logged in under or the last four digits of your phone number when it is your time to testify. At that time, staff will also enable your microphone and video. Please ensure your name on Microsoft Teams appears as the name you prefer to be referred to as or as anonymous if you wish to testify anonymously. If you are in person, please notify staff that you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of your testimony. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes. If you are still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. Once you are done testifying, or if you do not, wish to testify, you may also view the meeting on Akapu Channel 53, Facebook Live, or MauiCounty.us backslash agendas. At this time, we will call on testifiers wishing to testify on DRIP 25.

Thank you, Chair. Our first testifier signed up to testify is calling in. Last four digits are 4945, followed by Yohan Law.

Go ahead, testifier.

Hello. This is Jesse Law from East Kahului. I was hoping you would have testimony today. I hope there's quite a few testifiers because I feel like people need to get with the only words I can think of is the program. And I'm talking about burning Kalani cows comments about, I mean, I can't really specify, but I think I'm very glad that he's there today because I could relate to what he's saying. Unfortunately, I cannot see the presentation that he's showing to you guys because of... County clerk's office does not want me participating in the program, so I reckon they should get with Colonel Kalani Cowell and get with his program. So I'm sorry that I really get emotional because I'm trying to warn you guys and everybody, anybody out there listening within the sound of my voice, all the evil spirits, in the name of Jesus Christ and me, Kalani Cowell. And I'm sorry, I've got to use everybody's time to do that. I would probably keep my comments short there if I was allowed to come to the, I mean, allowed, yeah. If the police wouldn't threaten arrest me for coming to participate in the meetings. So that's where my mind has been for the past 24 hours is that I'll keep the evil guy, the evil spirits circling around me as much as I can and give you guys free time to try to fix this problem. And I really, really, really, infinitely appreciate your comments at the beginning of the meeting tomorrow, I mean, Chair Paulton, about the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom. that Queen Liliuokalani yielded her authority to avoid bloodshed because I don't want to see anybody get hurt. So now my mind's turning to Yukile Sugimura. I hope she's finally showed up in the meeting there because, and I apologize for the no representation from the up country. because it really shouldn't be divided like that. It should be back to the AHUPA system. I think everybody can see that from Mr. Kalani-Cowell's presentation that the system that we got now is kind of screwed up where they divided the districts. So once again, it goes back to the clerk's office. Somebody should redistrict.

If you can wrap it up, Mr. Long.

Yeah, thank you. I didn't hear any timer. So yeah, just the Ahu Kaua system, like you said, the Hawaiians have done it for thousands of years and it seemed to be all right. Now we're coming to these problems with the environment because of the main people in the governments, China and America,

are screwing everything up and then we got to deal with the problem so thank you everybody for being there thank you for letting me talk aloha thank you for your testimony members any um questions from the for the testifier seeing none thank you for your testimony thank you chair our next testifier is johan law followed by james lankford

johan lal i am testifying on my own behalf and um that presentation by vernon was super compelling like we need to send vernon to like the legislature to fema to you know everyone who needs to see his his pictures and his video because that is really extremely compelling and It shows why it's important, I think, to have good community planning, because the reason that, as Ronan said, places were built where they shouldn't have been built is because there wasn't enough planning and there wasn't enough regulation probably in place or regulators willing to say, no, you need to redesign your project and stuff along those lines. And I remember a couple of years ago, the council rejected a proposal to do multi-family affordable housing in a flood zone. And you guys got a lot of flack and people were saying you're against affordable housing and stuff. But that particular place, you know, who knows? Like if there was a bunch of people there, they could have been killed by flooding or at least have had their property destroyed. So it's really important, I think, for regulators to recognize that it's not just like pros and cons. It can often be like life and death with a lot of these things. and it's really important to take into account the risk and all that kind of stuff. But the Mauka Tumakai aspect is important and the community plan boundary, it doesn't include Kula, of course, but I think it's also important to take into account what is going on Mauka. And one thing is, within the community plan area, we drew cultures based on LIDAR data. And I testified at planning commission I think two or three times in defense of my gulches because there are folks from the development community who wanted those removed because they thought they were arbitrary and things like that but there's they're really like science-based and accurate as possible and it's also important I think to have buffers because one thing Vernon pointed out was channelization where you make a channel narrow and that speeds up the flow you know increases erosion you know, as much buffer as possible, you know, like there's language for like 100 feet in some places in the policies and really, you know, it could be 200, 300, whatever, but it's really important to have some kind of buffer. So you're not like just accelerating flow and creating more flooding downstream or erosion. So I'm glad you guys are addressing this and I'm glad you got that presentation from Vernon. So mahalo.

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

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is...

Member Rollins-Fernandez, did you have questions for Mr. Law?

Yeah, quick clarifying question for Mr. Law. Mahalo, Mr. Law, for your testimony this morning. Just the part about when you said that someone wanted to remove the gulches, or maybe I heard that wrong. If you could repeat that part and then...

The part about the gulches based on LIDAR? Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah, so when you guys get to the maps, you'll see that the gulches are defined as open space. And I believe, so originally we drew, like me and the other GIS folks in long range, drew outlines for those where we could see like the banks. And then there was discussion in CPAC about how much the buffer should be, whether it should be like 100, or 200 feet. I think at one point it was 200 and they reduced it. But and I don't necessarily have an opinion on how much buffer is needed, but I did just want to say like those cultures were based on actual data. And protection for them is really important. Where I grew up in Houston, they turned a lot of the streams, what they call bayous, into channels. And now Houston has massive flooding problems. Every time it rains, every time there's a hurricane. So it's really important to have protection and the wetland and the floodplain around those be protected. And it's also... If you're doing a development, I always think it's better to work within the landscape. So you can develop, but you can have your protected area. And maybe it takes a little bit more effort. It takes better people who can design, do like landscape architecture, but you can do both. You can have your cake and eat it too if you use a fork.

All for your clarification. Mahalo chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is James Langford, followed by Randy Wagner.

Wonderful. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee. What an excellent communication picture, definitely worth a thousand words, so I'll use less. What we're seeing is what happens with the systematic pressures that you folks and your seats go under when the developers come in and are throwing money around. And now we need to allow ourselves to do the math and say, okay, like we gave this much, like without any, you know, just pure math. Okay, we gave this many concessions. We were promised this much money. housing and this must infrastructure instead we got less and um and now it's costing this so that needs to be included in the conversation when uh and when developers are coming and i love development but uh it's just done so shoddily that the rest of the folks all of us shouldn't have to be uh you know footing the bill um before and after for example uh using yla 670 as the you know just one example so this is very reminiscent of the wildfires and the lack of care of the larger landowners which are also the same in kula as over there so That needs to be noted and integrated into the solution of like, look, the same people are doing this to our island for real estate benefit, and we need to explore the relationships with the islanders. with how the brokers are licensed in the same way that folks are going through ethics and other committees. We need to relicense this, especially based on the corruption from the audits that we've seen in the papers. So thank you so much, Chair. I really appreciate you, and you guys are doing a great job. I love you.

Thank you, Mr. Langford. Members, any questions for the testifiers? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is Randy Wagner. He will be followed by Dick Mayer.

Ms. Wagner. Ms. Wagner, it's your turn to testify.

Ms. Wagner, to unmute yourself, you would just have to go to the top right corner and hit the microphone icon.

Okay, there we go. Is that better? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Thank you. Aloha. And thank you, Vernon, for that amazing presentation. The solution is or the trying to mitigate that problem is so complex and permeates through this entire community plan. It shows up in so many different locations. I forget which policy number it was, but I think you guys removed the policy that said all the infrastructure needs to be in place prior to development. It's a two point two something policy that I think needs to be reinstated because that's like a real good way to slow it down to think. But the thing that's really important to me is the maps. For instance, the map of the Piolani Promenade property, the CPAC map has wide gulch protection in that map. The planning department map has narrow gulching, narrowing onto the gulches. I feel like it's super important that all those gulches be left with a wide berth, 150 feet, because we don't know how how things are going to be impacted. I'm the design review chair at Kihei Community Association, and I reviewed an affordable housing project that's at Kaonaulu Road. And that project, despite our objections, channelized a gulch under their parking lot and built a retaining wall right up next to the edge of the gulch. And that was done not that long ago. Because it was affordable housing, they got away with that because we need the affordable housing, which is really critical too. But I just think that all through every time that you come upon one of the issues that relates to the wetlands, for instance, the parcel, okay, 4.23 and 4.25, they include specific parcel numbers that have been struck Those parcels are critical wetlands that need to be preserved. The county needs to acquire them. So when you get to that, to review it again, please put that back in. And also like the Kihei Malka project, which I know is very controversial, but that has a 200-foot wide part of the plan from CPAC was to have a 200-foot wide barrier at the top. for fire infrastructure to separate it from that area. And also, I'm sure it can be used as, you know, just infrastructure in general, which this flooding is a manifestation of infrastructure failure. And I know the Kihei Malka project may do retention basins above and within. So I'm all for all that kind of thinking. every step of the way, each policy that you review. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wagner. Members, any clarifying questions for the testifier? Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. Aloha, Ms. Wagner. Mahalo for your testimony this morning. Okay, so the policy that you're speaking of is 2.2.37, and it's not in the Planning Commission draft that we have printed. We have it in the Attachment 3 document that shows the department's draft, CPAC's draft, MPC guidelines, and recommended changes. So in that matrix, members and the public can find 2.2.37. And that's the policy that prohibits further development without necessary infrastructure that you were speaking to. What was told to us yesterday was that it was removed and in its place were policies and actions that would achieve the purpose of this policy in the different ways that you're describing. Is that... Did you understand that, and is that something that would be sufficient to you? Because in the way it's written here, it's hard to enforce because it's very vague.

Well, I just wonder why they can't both be there. I think it would send the message much more clearly, and it could even refer to those other policies that you're mentioning that would address the same issues. So I think it should stay in and it should have a reference to those other places.

Mahalo for your response.

Mahalo. Thank you. And to clarify, that's Attachment 3A, page 38 at the top with the 2.2.37 on the very left-hand side, because the policies on the very right-hand side are numbered as adopted. My clarifying question was, when you said 4.23 and 4.25, you're talking about action items in Section 4. Is that correct?

You know, I find it really confusing. I think that's what they are. Is that where it says the numbers of the parcels for the wetlands to acquire them? That is an action, so yeah.

It doesn't say the number of the parcels. It just says acquire wetland parcels under the threat of condemnation if necessary to preserve as open space in perpetuity for 4.23 years. And 4.25 says acquire undeveloped land in the FEMA special flood hazard area to preserve as open space for flood mitigation. So was that what you were referring to?

Weren't the TMK numbers striked or stricken from those?

There's no TMK in the booklet, but we do have another... attachment brick of TM keys.

So that's how it is. Um, let me I'm trying to look through this. You know, it's I find that I don't really um, know how to read all this stuff, especially with all the varieties of plans that came first, CPAC and then planning and then planning commission. I just know, let me see, hold on. Can you hold on for one second while I look for something here? I have it from the presentation that Rob gave to us at KCA and maybe you could ask him to refer to what it is that I'm talking about.

All of our attachments are under the meeting details on the number three item online. If you go to MauiCounty.us backslash agendas, go to today's meeting details and item number three should have all of the attachments. that's where some of the documents that we're working off of.

You know, that's beyond my pay grade.

Okay.

All right. I feel like if you could ask Rob, he would be able to direct you to where it is. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

I appreciate the clarity that you're trying to help me with, but, um, I'm more of an ideas person than a specifics person, and I found all these specifics, but I don't know how to relocate them. I just made a list.

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

Thank you, Chair. The next person we assign to testify is Dick Mayer. I think they might have dropped off, though.

Mr. Mayor, are you online? Are there other testifiers we can circle back around?

There is one person who has raised their hand, Chair. Just one second here. Albert Perez.

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Perez.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Chair Palten and all committee members, it's nice to see you again. I too am having trouble keeping track of all of like all these documents, the policy matrix, like the changes between the CPAC and, you know, I'm used to doing this kind of stuff. I'll proceed with my testimony. Anyway, I want to thank Vernon for his excellent presentation. There's nothing like a drone to show us from angles that we can't see when we're just driving around. But you know, it's really important that we stop developing in flood zones and wetlands, particularly affordable housing, because these are people, when they can finally afford a home, then they get flooded out. They're least able to afford all the damage to their properties and their personal possessions. And we shouldn't be putting them in that position. It feels kind of mean. Yes, they get a house, finally, and then they don't have the financial wherewithal to weather the storm, so to speak. I will also remind you, as I did at Monday's visit to Kuala Lumpur, that the proposed North Kihei mauka lies in the watershed that drains to where you saw it coming out in the ocean. In Vernon's presentation, it's some of the worst flooding in South Maui. It floods horribly and it inundates many homes every time we get a big rain. Developing in North Kihei mauka will make it worse. Switching gears, I want to comment on some testimony that was submitted by Cades Schutte, the law firm. the same legal team that brought us a reduction in affordable housing at Wailea 670. And frankly, I had to laugh when their opening line was essentially, watch out, community plans are law. This is what we've been saying for years, but then they flipped that on its head to say, keep it vague or it will be enforceable. They would have you believe that the world will come to a grinding halt if there's an inconsistency between the community plan and Chapter 2.96. Their recommendation, of course, is to keep it vague so it won't be enforceable, ignore the clear will of the community, and use what I call weasel words, weasel words like encourage or it would be nice if this would happen, instead of clear language like shall and require that will keep the long community planning effort from becoming a waste of time. This is the latest in a series of attempts to make the community plans toothless. So I say, the solution is to move ahead with strong enforceable language that the community wants and follow up by revising 2.96 and any other ordinance that conflicts with the general plan. The general plan leads and the ordinances need to follow. Mahalo.

Thank you. Does that conclude your testimony? Yes. Member Rawlings-Fernandez, do you have a clarifying question for the testifier?

Mahalo, Chair. Aloha, Mr. Perez. Mahalo for your testimony. I heard you and Ms. Wagner now say that it's been a challenge to follow along our proceedings. To clarify your initial comments regarding our process, Do you think it would be more helpful to you and the public if perhaps we shared screen when we're looking at the matrix of each of the policy drafts for department, CPAC, MPC guidelines and recommended?

Yeah, absolutely. That's a good idea.

Okay, perhaps Chair can ask staff if we could do that when there are differences and no changes to the policies. Mahalo, Mr. Press. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. Aloha.

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

Thank you, Chair. Our next testifier is Dick Mayer.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes. Thank you. The last meeting, I spoke about giving a short presentation on the cumulative impacts, and you said I could be a resource person. I just want to have your staff contact me so we can set the time up and I can send the very short PowerPoint to them so that can be made available. I just want to make sure that that gets done. sure um we're a little bit clean it by ear um because we don't know how much progress we make each day but we can um estimate yeah but i would think the next monday is your next meeting where you may get to it and i could do it then or at a future meeting just have them contact me so we can set up the mechanism yes

Oh, was that all of your testimony?

Yeah, nothing more.

Oh, okay. All right. Members, any questions for the testifier? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Staff, you want to do a last call?

Thank you, Chair. This will be a last call for testimony on today's item. If you are on Teams, please use the raise your hand function, or you can dial in if you're calling online by pressing star five. This will be last call. Three, two, one. Chair seeing none, no one indicates they wish to testify.

Thank you. Members, any objection to closing oral testimony and adding written testimony to the record?

Objection, Chair.

Objection.

Thank you, and written testimony will remain, continue to remain open throughout this process, so people can send in written testimony at any time, any number of times that they'd like to. Okay, so where we left off yesterday was the close of all of the policies in 2.2, which the goal for that was safe, healthy, livable communities for all. and we had made our way through all of the policies in the south my community plan draft book as well as all of the policies in attachment 3a i wanted to um as we kind of rushed through the last three yesterday wanting to open it up to the members if they had any policy proposals for section 2.2 healthy safe healthy sorry safe healthy livable communities for all member rollins fernandez

Mahalo Chair, I don't have a proposal, but I wanted to follow up on that request of doing a screen share when there are differences in the CPAC draft and the MPC draft. and recommended changes like when there aren't any changes then no need you know share screen but um when there are for the the public to um better um to make it easier for the public to be able to follow along with us uh remember cook and i both got lost at one point uh because there was a proposal that was proposed by the uh cpac but uh deleted by mpc and we were trying to find it and um We later found it, but this took a moment.

Is that something we can do today or would we need set up time for that?

Chair, sorry, to clarify, this would be the screen share matrix 3A and matrix 10A. This is the matrix that shows the changes between the CPAC and the Maui Planning Commission and the matrix that shows the policy alignment between the higher level plans, the countywide policy plan and Maui Island plan.

Yeah, yeah, mostly 3A, but maybe on occasion 10A.

Mr. Ramirez is on it, so he'll be able to screen share.

Oh, okay, wonderful. Great. Mahalo, Mr. Ramirez and Chair. Yeah, mostly 3A.

So getting back to the original question, did anybody have additional policies for 2.2 safe, healthy, and livable communities for all? Nobody. Okay, no problem. All right, for members' information, if you have the attachments as indicated in the crosswalk that were printed out for you, we're on attachment 3A, page 43. we're on the South Maui Draft Community Plan booklet, page 40. And for attachment 10A, we're on page 27. So it may be a good idea for all of us to get on the same page to start off with, because then we'll be on the same page. To repeat, that's attachment 10A, page 27. Attachment 3A, page 43 and page 40 of your booklet. Member Rawlings-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. So to clarify, we're looking at policy 2.3.1? Yeah, yeah. Okay. We're going back to 2.3, not to 2.4 yet.

We didn't start 2.3 yet. 2.3 is Ready and Resilient Systems. We just closed out 2.2 yesterday.

Oh, got it. Yes, you're right. Sorry.

Yeah. And, excuse me, page 40 actually is the introduction. Why is it important? How will setting this goal affect our future? And cross-cutting topics on page 41. For the members that might be just members, Nohe, Uhu, Hodgins, The way we're going through this is if we are good with it, if it is what it is, we're not making amendments. If we wanna change something, then we're making amendments. So if there are no amendments proposed, it is what it is stated here. So I have no amendments for page 40 or cross-cutting topics. Any from the crowd, any amendments on that introduction page on page 40? I have none. Okay, moving on. The first policy for 2.3.1 in the book is in relation to climate change and sea level rise. These are the versions in the matrix of how it was changed. It is pretty similar, or it hits points in the Maui Island Plan and the Countywide Policy Plan as well. It hits those, although I think In the recommended changes, which I do like, it specifically calls out the Hawaii Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Commission's recognized threshold for sea level rise exposure area. And it talks about... beach restoration projects or traditional Hawaiian cultural projects, not needing to be restricted in the same way as development. So I do like the recommended language. One amendment that I might propose is I would just say to minimize damages. We don't need to specify to development. When development fails, it damages other things. Personally, I wouldn't mind striking to development to minimize damages from future coastal erosion. I don't know if you wanna, if you look at the far right side, except a minimum buildable area must be provided. That could be like a comma, small e, because it relates to the, but that's, I don't know if that's non-substantive. So unless there are other comments, I would entertain a proposal to go to the recommended changes and just strike to development and any other non-substantive changes.

So moved.

Second. Moved by Member Johnson, seconded by Member Sinensi. Any discussion from the move on?

I think making it less wordy is better. Thank you, Chair.

Yes, I did have a question. I don't know if it's for an attorney or a planner. When we mentioned the Slorexa exposure area, do we need to specify the full 3.2 feet or is that understood?

Chair, while we're waiting, perhaps Mr. Ramirez can stop the screen share when we go into deliberation.

Oh, okay. Sure. And then I do see Ms. Nakata does have her hand up. I don't know if she has the answer.

Chair, I would just note that in Appendix D, there is a definition for sea level rise exposure area slorexa, which reads the Hawaii, I'm sorry, this is page 161. It reads the Hawaii Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Commission's recognized planning target or threshold for sea level rise exposure, which is currently 3.2 feet of sea level rise. The planning threshold may change over time based on best available scientific information. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Nakata. So from that being the definition, when Slorexa is referred to like in this policy, we can assume that it means whatever the current number is.

Yes, Chair. I think when a defined term is used in the plan, then we can rely on the definition.

Okay. Karen, is that something you agree with?

Yes. This was actually put in by our colleagues from UH recommended this language.

Oh, okay. Great. Any further discussion or clarifying questions, Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Mahalo Chair. So if that is the definition, should we strike it from the policy? So and therefore the motion?

Oh, no, it was recommended to have it. Sorry.

Yeah. And my clarifying question is like, you know, when you see the slorexa on like maybe the real property tax map layer, they have like one foot, which they were estimating at 2050. They have like, you know, 3.2, which they were estimating at 2100 the year. And so I was just wanting to clarify, when they say slorexa in the policy, is it understood to mean the full 3.2? And because when you go to slorexa definition in the appendix, it does state 3.2, that is what the term slorexa or sea level rise means.

must be located landward of the sea level rise exposure area they're talking about the full 3.2 that is like the layer on the map does that make sense understood um but in on on one page on page 161 um under definitions it has the exact same language i guess i don't understand why we would repeat it if that's the definition of it.

It's not the exact same language. The 161 says sea level rise exposure area which is currently 3.2 feet of sea level rise and that is not in policy 2.3.1.

So it means something different there?

No, that's what it means. That was my question, was when it refers to Slorexa, is it the full 3.2? And because when it refers to Slorexa definition in the appendix, it does say 3.2, that is what it means. So they kind of...

So if it means the same thing, why are we repeating it? That's my question.

We're not repeating it. In the policy, it doesn't say 3.2.

But it says Slorexa, and Slorexa's definition on page 161 is 3.2.

Yeah, it's not repeated. Page 41 doesn't say 3.2.

And that's because we don't want it to say 3.2? Because it means something different?

No, 3.2 is the definition of SLUREXA, which is on page 161.

Ms. Komkowicz is raising her hand. Ms. Komkowicz?

This language being in the policy helps to clarify. The definition includes 3.2, which is the current threshold. So this is saying it's the threshold or the erosion hazard for coastal erosion. So this isn't the full slur exit. It's for coastal erosion specifically, but it is whatever the threshold is for sea level rise right now. It's not the current erosion hazard line. It's being more specific and it is important that that language remain in there.

Okay, but the definition does give it flexibility over time by saying that the threshold may change over time. But I understand what you're saying. And I'm happy to leave that in there. I'm just saying that the definition also allows it to move.

Yes. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, I see eight ayes, zero noes, one excused. Member Sukumar, motion passes.

Thank you. It was brought to my attention, we may not have the full body that we have here after lunch. Is there any desire to go into executive session? Mr. Nunakawa did say he wanted to give us guidance. If there is a desire to go into executive session, we would need him to state what would be the reason we're going into executive session. Is that something you still were requesting, Mr. Nunakawa?

Yes, Chair. You wanted to schedule that today. The reasoning is to go over some of the body's authorities and the legal considerations that might impact your decision-making related to how the general plan is written in our legislation, in state law, county law, and in common law court cases.

Okay. Chair Lee? So I just wanted to check with Corp Council that his wanting us to consider executive session has nothing to do with the video we saw earlier from Vernon.

No, he had requested that from day one before we even saw the video.

Okay, so it's not related because I would have questions along those lines.

Yeah, not really related. We can hold that until we get to something that he advises on the policy. The intention was to try and get the most members. If we do go into executive session, there isn't currently a need to go into executive session that I'm aware of, but if that was something that we wanted to do, like maybe when we get hung up on lawyer advice on a policy or so on and so forth, do members want to continue working on as we are, or is there a six-member desire to go into executive session? I think we're okay right now, but I'll leave it to the body. We do have, um, I just wanted to make note that we do have our resources. Mr. Well, I mean, and Mr Kalani call generously donating their time. To us, and I would hate to put them out a little bit membership.

Hello chair. Um. You know, at the community meeting, we heard a lot of testimony about costs related to important infrastructure. And so I don't know if that I mean, I would be supportive of going into executive just. if we are discussing those types of, you know, water, stormwater, wastewater, infrastructure, and like a cost analysis. But I don't know if that can be discussed on the floor.

I think a lot of it can be discussed on the floor. The cost part of the plan comes in in Section 4, which would be next. I don't see all the members that are in the meeting photo right now, so I don't even know if we have all the members right now. Member Orleans-Fernandez, camera is off. Go ahead, Member Orleans-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. My understanding is just the advice is about the general plan and island plan and how they interact.

Mr. Nahulu? Mr. Nunakawa?

That one. That's part of it as well as how they interact with state law and some of the court cases that relate to how to interpret sort of the effect of the general plan.

Yeah, so there isn't like a rush to do it before we end the policy section or is there?

There's not a rush, it's more sort of general guidance and considerations for as you're making these decisions. So I don't think there's necessarily a rush. We could definitely go to executive session later. It might change some of your previous decisions, but I don't think that that's necessarily an issue. It's just up to the body how they want to move forward.

And for the most part, we've been asking for your department's guidance when making decisions on each of the policies. So for the information that we can get in open session, we are receiving it and we are being informed to the fullest that we can in open session when we're making our decisions. So it should be relatively okay. Okay. Member Cook? I'm going to join on my phone, and I'm going to be in a public location at the OHA meeting, and then I'll also be in this meeting.

Okay. Member Cook?

Thank you, Chair. How long would this presentation and executive session take approximately?

Mr. Nunakawa?

It's hard to gauge. I think it would be dependent on sort of the questions the body might have when I present the information. So it could be relatively short, like maybe 20 minutes to half an hour, or it could be much longer, just depending on whether there's a lot of questions based on the information provided.

And now that Member Rollins-Fernandez is in double meetings, I don't know that she could join us for the executive session at this time, but go ahead, Member Cook.

I'm supportive of going into executive session when we have enough members and we need to do it because it sounds like we're being cautioned very cautiously about the interaction of the various state county etc etc laws so um i think this the sooner we do this the better since we're doing decision making along the way and the comment that well we could go and revisit stuff and it might not be a big deal kind of to me is a big deal because so many of these things are sort of all interactive so although i would Being an executive session isn't my favorite thing to do. I'm supportive of doing it because I'm getting the message very lightly from court counsel that he wants us to hear this stuff. Thank you for the opportunity to say that.

Maybe tentatively before we close out Section 2, because we were going to do a quick Section 2 revisit before we close it out. So unless something comes up between now and then, but it is a little bit difficult to choose a time when everyone's here to go into executive section. If not, everybody is here. I mean, members Sugimura has been coming a minimal amount and people have been in and out. So we're navigating that challenge as well. Um, so it sounds like we're just gonna continue on at this point. Um, the next policy is 2.3.2. And if Mr Ramirez can, um, post Attachment 3A, page 44 and 45. One of the major differences I would see is... Is this the one? C and D were removed by the Planning Commission. E talks, it seems. Ms. Komkowicz, yes, I see your hand raised if you wanna share with us about this particular policy.

I apologize for the confusing formatting. It was actually removed during the CPAC process at the advice of Corporation Council because it is the C and D are conditions that can be put on by Maui Planning Commission, but is not in the purview of the community plan to put those conditions on.

And it looks like the Planning Commission chose not to exercise that as well.

And they just let the Planning Commission? They left it as it is, yeah.

Okay, so C was talking about liability and D was talking about conditioned permit approvals. However, that is the authority, the sole authority of the Planning Commission and they did not give that up to the rest of us, it seems. Okay, Member Batongan.

Thank you, Chair. Can you clarify So my understanding from what you had said was that it's the sole authority of the Planning Commission, meaning that we couldn't adopt it through the South Maui Community Plan, because then that would be...

Them wielding their authority.

Okay, so that's what you meant, Chair.

Yeah, a little bit.

I thought you had meant that they were choosing not to add it in their review of the South Maui Community Plan.

Yeah, the Planning Commission chose not to do that, so I interpret that as... Oh, I thought it had to be done...

Through a vehicle that is solely in their domain.

Yes, either way, they didn't choose to yield their authority and this vehicle is not solely in their domain. So that being said, I was a little confused at what point it got removed. So thank you for clarifying that. I have no. given that that's the way that it played out, I have no recommendation for amendment. Member Batonga, did you have further? Oh, your hand was still up. Okay, so I have no further recommendation for amendment on that. If anyone from the floor did. Member Uuhajins.

Thank you, Chair. I don't have a recommendation for amendment, but can I ask some clarifying questions on the language?

Yes. Okay, thank you. Did you want to direct the question to?

Perhaps we're planning. I wanted to understand what sort of timeline they were assuming when we say proactively coordinate. And then I understand adjacent, but by nearby properties, are we going to do the similar like what we do at SMA and do that 500 feet radius?

Ms. Komkovic?

I believe this is done on a case by case basis.

Okay.

So it kind of depends on the size of the development, what the impacts in the neighborhood are, the impacts of sea level rise.

Okay. And then I'm assuming that's for maybe the nearby property owners. And for proactively coordinate, when would you like to, I mean, they have to do permitting and all that stuff. So how would you want to define or how would you like to think to define, I guess, even the proactively coordinate? What's your hopes with that?

So this is actually a copy paste from the West Maui Community Plan. It is already being implemented. When property owners come in for a shoreline permit, they coordinate with the shoreline team to understand where their structure, where they are proposing the structure to be, where would be a more appropriate place for the structure.

Okay. So this is just during the application process.

It's only for redevelopment and new developments.

Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any further questions or are we ready to move on to the next? Okay. For 2.3.3, if we can flash that up, I thought that the recommended changes changes made in from this is a CPAC original draft policy and then I think MPC made it a little bit better draft guidelines a little bit better and then recommended changes I think I think the progression from CPAC draft to the recommending changes are great. And I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I would entertain a motion to amend 2.3.3 to the recommended language if anyone is so inclined.

So moved.

Moved by Member Johnson. Seconded by Member Sinensi. Discussion by the move on.

What's the expression? Let the people stay? I can't remember the expression, but we definitely want to respect the iwi kupuna in the land. So definitely support.

Thank you. Okay, any further discussion, clarifying questions? None. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, I'm seeing seven ayes, zero noes to excuse. Member Patongan and Sugimura, motion passes.

Okay, thank you. For 2.3.4, I do like the way that it ended up in the booklet, which I believe is the changes per drafting guidelines. There was a section taken out or yeah, the part open space as undeveloped space greenways. stormwater management facilities and active restoration areas or parks. It's just rewritten. It still contains as undeveloped space, but it just was written differently, I guess. But it carries the same meaning. Anyone else? want to amend or anything we can move on you guys like that too the language as it made in there okay moving on to 2.3.5 oh good job thanks so um on this one I think staff and I were discussing about maybe keeping it simple. When we're talking about supporting amendments from the Maui Island Plan and Community Plan and change of zoning, do these all need to be spelled out in that way, or could we say support land use entitlements? Ms. Komkovic.

This one, I would suggest keeping that in there. The next one is more simple, 2.3.5, because that applies to the whole community plan area. Ma'alai specifically has space that all of this can It's to specifically say amend the parcel right behind Ma'alai, essentially, so that shoreline retreat can be achieved. It's one of the few places on island where there's still space for shoreline retreat to be done easily.

Well, not easily. And you think it all needs to be spelled out that we're supporting amendments to the Maui Island Plan, Community Plan, and change of zoning rather than seeing... support land use entitlement for a new development in Ma'alai'a on, like you want it all spelled out, Maui Island plan, community plan, change of zoning?

This is a carefully thought out policy, yes. I think it's important to keep all of it in there.

Okay. And then did other members have any questions on this? I had one more question, but I don't want to be a question hog.

Oh, members in anti auto chair when it says this is 2.3.4. Yeah.

Yeah.

2.3.4 where it says coastal hazards and I was just thinking of the video that we just seen with the flooding with flooding be considered under coastal hazards.

The flooding, the shoreline flooding would be considered under coastal hazards. The Mauka flooding, and there is a stream that runs through that area.

You could add. Sorry, this is specific to Ma'alai on Hawali Street.

Yeah, 2.3.5, sorry, my bad. Yes.

Okay, thank you. Oh, go ahead.

There are other policies that affect, that address flooding specifically.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chuck.

Anyone else, further questions? I had a question. I'm not sure if it's for planning or corporation council. I like this policy because it starts to get us thinking about coastal retreat, which was something brought up on the testimony Monday night. I guess the question I have is when we're talking about affected Makai development retreating inland. Are we referring to a transfer of development rights? A lot of those, it was mentioned, are currently in short-term rental. We also have been funding through the budget the last couple years about Ma'alai'a wastewater treatment system because I think their untreated wastewater is being injected at Ma'alai'a. And so I guess the question is, does it matter if it's currently in short-term rental? Are we committing to a retreat and rebuilding of short-term rental with this policy? Or does it not matter what the current use is? Those are some of my questions. Right now, it's short-term rental. We are trying to help them with their wastewater system to not continue to pollute Ma'alaya with untreated to our standards of wastewater. And so there is a bit of a public-private partnership going on. It's not... It's meant to help the environment there, the coastal waters, but it's not meant to subsidize the tourism industry or individual owners of properties. Are we committing to... short-term rentals coming back or just simply structures regardless of the use or are we seeing that the use is the same? Those are some of my questions. I'm not sure if it's a lawyer or a planner question.

This is intended to be a transfer of development rights situation and I would appreciate Nuhulu answering that more thoughtfully.

Mr. Nunokawa?

This is on 2.3.4. 2.3.5. The first number is 2.3.4 in the first column.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, sorry, it does get a little confusing. It started out as one and then it ended up as a different number. So the number on the far right is what it ends up as, but it initially started out as 2.3.4 on the far left. That part is a little confusing.

So this one has to do with some of the things I wanted to go over in executive session, sort of the interplay between the different- Maui Island plan, community plan, change of zoning. Yeah, SMA, et cetera.

And it's talking about supporting amendments to those to allow for like a coastal retreat.

Because some of these might impede on things that are state jurisdiction or my planning commission jurisdiction. So instead of trying to having hard language that might conflict with these things and cause legal complications, it's more encouraging reaching out to the proper venues for changing.

Okay, so we've hit one where he would like to go into executive session with us. Member Rollins-Fernandez is on a double call. We can come back to this one or we can have Member Rollins-Fernandez meet individually. Is there a preference? You wanna come back to this one or you wanna meet individually? whatever the majority of the members would prefer okay uh member cook i i'd like to get it out of the way but obviously i'll yield to the majority can we hear how the bot each person feels is that's not a straw poll is it or i guess you know if somebody wants to make a motion for executive session it wouldn't be a straw poll it would be an actual vote

I'll make a motion to go into executive session.

Okay, moved by Member Cook. It looks like Chair Lee was at a second.

I can, but I was just going to say I'm open.

You're open. Okay. I do see Ms. Nakata's hand raised.

Chair, in connection with the motion, could we please state the bases under the HRS, which I believe would be 925A4, possibly also 925A8, 92584 would be to consult with legal counsel on the rights, duties, and liabilities of the county, the council, and the committee. Thank you, Chair.

Is that correct, Mr. Nunokawa, as the reasoning?

Yeah.

Okay, that would be the reason incorporated into the motion. Would somebody affirmatively like to second it, Charlie? Okay, seconded by Member Uuhajins. And the reason we're going was just stated by Ms. Nakata. Any discussion? Does this need to be a roll call vote or would we like to be a voice vote? Oh, Member Rollins-Fernandez?

It can be a voice vote. I'll go into my view.

Okay. All those in favor of entering into executive session, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, eight ayes, zero noes, one excuse. Member Sugimura, motion passes.

Okay. Members, do you have any additional questions or comments for Corporation Council in open session on this item? Not at this time, okay. So we're going into executive session for section 92.5 per and a per and four Hawaii revised statutes to consult with legal counsel on questions and issues pertaining to the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and liabilities of the county, the council and the committee. as well as section 92-5 , Hawaii revised statutes to deliberate or make a decision upon a matter that requires the consideration of information that must be kept confidential pursuant to a state or federal law or a court order. An affirmative vote of two thirds of the voting members present provided the affirmative vote constitutes a majority of the members to which the board is entitled is needed to convene. So we did get that. For the record, the following personnel will be attending the executive session meeting. That would be myself, Tamara Palote, Council Chair Al Listley, Council Member Shane Sinensi, Council Member Tom Cook, Council Member Nohe'uhajins, Council Member Gabe Johnson, Council Member Batangan, Member Rollins-Ferrandez. Were you going to be able to meet with Corp Council individually? Yeah. Okay.

Oh, no, no, I'm just going to go to my vehicle.

Oh, you're going to go into a secure location.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay, so and also Council Member Rollins-Fernandez in her private vehicle privately. Office of Council Services staff, Carla Nakata, legislative attorney, and Yvette Boutilier, senior committee secretary, may I ask Corporation Council to state who from the Department of Corporation Council or administration will be in the executive session as well as your titles, please.

I will be attending, Deputy Corporation Counsel Nuhulu Nunukau, and I'm not sure if Mike Hopper also wanted to attend.

Mr. Hopper? Yes, I'd like to be included if possible. Okay, so Deputy Corporation Counsel, Mike Hopper as well. We don't need anyone from planning, is that correct?

I don't think so because I don't think that they're required for the legal aspect of the conversation.

Okay. All right, then. Those were the people who will be in executive session. At this time, the chair would like to call for a five-minute recess to 11.03 a.m., and then we will reconvene in an executive meeting. This meeting of the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee is now in recess. We'll return in executive session at 11.03. Will the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee reconvene? The time is now 1.33 p.m. Members, we have just completed our executive meeting on DRIP 25 as well as our lunch recess. At this time, I would love to refer to Ms. Nakata to provide the summary in accordance with Hawaii Revised Statute section 92-4.

Yes, thank you, Chair. Your committee convened in an executive meeting pursuant to HRS sections 925A4 and 925A8, where it was advised by Corporation Council and certain rights duties and liabilities that the committee should take into consideration in its evaluation of the update to the South Maui Community Plan. Apart from things that were required to be discussed in an executive meeting, your committee did touch upon the language of Policy 2.3.5, Is that correct? Yes, 2.3.5, which is the point at which the committee was when Corporation Council requested the executive meeting. A couple of the things that the committee discussed should actually more properly be discussed in the open meeting, including the language of that policy and certain awkwardness, I guess, that was pointed out by Corporation Council enacting the updated community plan and incorporating a policy that talks about amending that same plan. And also concerns about supporting managed retreat. So chair, I think that those things are issues that can be discussed by the committee and open in the open portion of its meeting. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Ms. Nakata. I can elaborate a little bit further on the awkwardness. Please jump in and stop me if that's not, if I stray into not open session discussion, but it was discussed the awkwardness of the community plan seeing things about amendments to the community plan being awkward because during this community plan update, we can amend the community plan. However, certain other things, like it's not that time yet. and a community plan update or amendment is not a mechanism where conditions are put on it that would be more appropriate in a change in zoning. And so if there's not active, retreating inland because of adverse effects from sea level rise or other coastal hazards, this may not be the time to do that community plan amendment. Is that okay Ms. Nakata for the elaboration of the awkwardness of the wording?

Yes, Chair, I think that's fine. I don't know if Corporation Council has anything they'd like to add in that regard. But the other issue was also the committee's policy considerations when it comes to supportive managed retreats.

Okay, Mr. Hopper, Mr. Nunokawa, is there any of the executive session that could be in open session that you'd like to reiterate for open session that we talked about in executive session? They're on, right?

Chair, I only see Deputy Corporation Council Hopper online.

Mr. Hopper, did you want to elaborate on any of the executive session discussion in regards to which that Ms. Nakata talked about about managed retreat that could be spoken to in open session? I guess he might still be at lunch but logged in. Ms. Nakata, was there something specific about the managed retreat portion that you felt was open session material?

Thank you, Chair. No, I believe that the committee started to express support for some managed retreat policies in connection with its discussion of policy 2.3.5 that were probably more appropriate for the open meeting. So if the committee wants to

Got it, got it. Okay, thank you. You kind of jogged my memory. I guess the question for planning around the verbiage in 2.3.5 is that this is very specific for a specific location, and you had mentioned that specifically there was land. available in this specific area for buildings to possibly, or structures to possibly retreat to. Is there any issue with language that may be broader and apply to various situations where this is support amendments to the Maui Island Plan and Community Plan and changes of zoning for new development in Ma'alaya on land Mauka of Hauoli Street and the Slorexa for affecting Makai development retreating inland because of adverse effects from sea level rise or other coastal hazards. What if we were to amend it to apply to the South Maui Community Plan area to say, you know, support land entitlements or redevelopment on land mauka of the Slorexa for affected Makai development retreating inland because of adverse effects from sea level rise or other coastal hazards as a more general policy for the South Maui Community Plan area as opposed to specifically Ma'alai'a and Hawa'oli Street. Is that,

there a potential for that addressing like the community plan area as a whole there is the potential for addressing it as a whole it's kind of addressed to the next one i understand what you're saying is more specific um it is that there is land within the growth boundaries in mahalaya Oh, within the growth boundary.

So it wouldn't need like a district boundary amendment or something like that. It wouldn't need an urban growth boundary.

Yeah, it wouldn't be an overall change. It's fine if that's what you'd like to put. The community plan is an opportunity to be more specific, though.

And then I guess the other question would be in regards of the timing issue because I guess the reason why we're not actually amending the community plan right now for land, mauka, of Haole Street is because, say, as part of this community plan update, we changed the community plan amendment, or we changed the existing community plan to allow for what is being said here. I don't believe the county owns that land, one, and two, If we did a community plan amendment, what would prevent the owner of that land developing it and not have it be for Makai development retreating inland because of adverse effects from sea level rise or other coastal hazards?

That is the reason this was a policy rather than a land use designation change.

Oh, okay. So that's why the awkward wording.

Yes.

Got it. Okay. Any other members have any other discussion in regards to this policy? Or anything executive session related that you wanted to state in an open session because it was an executive session? No. Okay. I know Member Cook said he would be a few minutes late, and I think he did have some things he wanted to say on this particular policy. and it looked like Mr. Weltman also. Did you have something you wanted to say? While we're waiting for Mr. Cook to get back on, we can hear from Mr. Weltman, and if Mr. Cook's not back on by that time, we can move on to the next, because I know he had something he wanted to say in regards to this policy.

Yes, the CPAC supported this strongly. I just wanted to point out that the area across the street is not within the urban growth boundary, so it still requires an island plan amendment.

Oh, it's not within the urban growth boundary? It's not, no. Oh, okay.

We support it. We just wanted to point that out.

And timing was a reason that... that you understood that you weren't actually changing the community plan through this update?

Yeah, it's just too early. There's too much that has to be done.

Okay. Member Cook, did you have anything you wanted to say? We're on policy number 2.3.5. Thank you, Chair.

I was wondering if the committee was contemplating the moving, if part of the reason they talked about moving Ma'alai'a back was preservation of the bay. So it was a combination of managed retreat, but kind of identifying on that because it was really encroaching on the bay.

And that question is for Mr. Weltman or?

Mr. Weltman.

Okay.

Well, I mean, Ma'alea is falling into the bay. Some people are gonna have to move very, very, some of them very soon, some of them in a little while. And so the idea is just let's get prepared for this and have opportunities so they don't lose their ability to stay in the area. So it's just, this is imminent for some of the properties there along the bay. But yes, of course, it will improve the quality of ocean water moving the existing buildings back from the bay.

Okay, thank you. That answered my question. That particular stretch, since it had property behind it, it's an opportunity for management. Thank you, Chair. And sorry for my delay.

No problem. I don't have any recommendation for amendment of this policy. Are we okay to move on?

Okay.

The next policy I also, there were no changes made from the department's draft to the CPAC to the MPC to the drafting guidelines and recommended changes, so it is okay with me to leave 2.3.6 as is Mr. Ramirez is showing us the next one, but is there any objection to moving on from 2.3.6? No objection here. Okay, 2.3.7. It is already the drafting guideline changes are already in there. It says that implements instead of related to. I'm perfectly fine with that language. Any objection to moving on? as well as 2.3.7, which has no changes from when the department proposed it. So I don't have any problem with 2.3.8 as well. Moving on to 2.3.9. There is a recommendation from the team that this is already covered under the countywide policy plan 2.3.9. It did make it into the booklet. And if you look at page 30 of attachment 10A, The countywide policy plan specifically states, support emerging industries, including the following renewable energy industry, promote the use of locally renewable energy sources, reward energy efficiency, encourage small-scale energy generation that utilizes wind, sun, water, bio-waste, and other renewable sources of energy. expand renewable energy production and promote and support environmentally friendly practices in all energy sectors. So, In the past when it's really similar, we've put an asterisk on it. Here specifically, the recommended change is where to delete. I'll leave it to the body, your preference. Would you like to asterisk this policy as duplicative or redundant? Or would you like to just leave it in or take it out? Member Cook.

I'd like to take it out just to make it less dense and easier to interpret and implement.

Okay. Did you want to say something? Member Cook, do you mind hearing from Mr. Weltman?

Oh, not at all. Certainly.

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Weltman.

I think it should stay for the same reason as the others should and also because We've actually had issues around this in South Maui. We have a couple of small solar farms and we had one which had opposition and never got implemented and they would have meant a lot, I think, for the resilience of Maui and especially for South Maui if it gets cut off. So I think we need to call this out here and having an asterisk is fine to relate it to other more Maui-wide policies.

Okay, I'm not sure if it was Corp Council or Planning that recommended the leashing. In the Countywide Policy Plan and the Maui Island Plan, it doesn't seem to include the portion that talks about maintenance and disposal not burdening the county landfills and the commission at the end. of the project's intended use, as well as safeguarding endangered flora and fauna. Do we know who recommended delete? Was it Planning or was it Corp Council?

It was Planning. It's fine to leave it in. There are policies in the County-wide policy plan. They're not specifically on this list that have to do with taking care of flora and fauna and getting rid of waste.

Oh, okay. I'm amenable either way. So whatever the body would like to do, either put an asterisk or remove it, let me know.

I'm now fine with leaving it, put an asterisk. Okay.

Can that be non-substantive, the asterisk? Okay. All right, now moving on to 2.3.10. This looks like one of the ones that we got a later consultation with OEB Resources on. And so in the... Some of the main changes are a should became a may, And then Department of OEV Resources was added as one of the consultations. I have no issue with adding Department of OEV Resources as one of the consultations. I don't think that's too out of the thing. Just OEV Resources were not in existence when the plan was originally begun. The only other one is the change from should to may, and that looks like a drafting guideline change. Any input from the members? Are they okay with the should to may? You guys are okay? All right. And then, oh, Member Sinensi.

I just wanted to hear from Mr. Kalanickao or Chair Welton.

Okay, maybe Chair Weltman, do you have any on the should to the may?

Interestingly enough, so I mean, if you go from positive should to positive may, it's a weakening. If you go from should not to may not, it's actually a strengthening, so that's fine. But it was Vernon who proposed this, and I'd really like to hear his comments on the changes.

Mr. Kalanikau?

So I try to reflect back doing that discussion where we, back then, I thought we added more than just sand. My intent was to have sand, pohaku, and sediment and soil. The whole intent was to manage our resources in the moku. I think that was the, that would be the first, I believe, in a community plan that we should manage our own resources in the MOKU, meaning, good example is a lot of the settlement from Kulaani Haukoi, the contractor, would consult with me out of respect from the cultural perspective, how we're gonna manage the settlement. So there are other places outside of South Maui or the Kula Moku that wanted settlement. My role in that was I would contact Kupuna or people of that particular Moku, are you guys okay? with removing sediment to another moku, check with the kupuna if you're okay having them next door to your stream and stuff like that. So it's continuing the practice of being respectful of our resources and how we, We share our resources from moku to moku, as we know that we use a lot of pohaku from Central Maui to help with our sinkholes along Saukihi Road. Nice to have those discussions with kanaka between the mokus on sharing our resources to help each other. So that was my whole intent when I introduced this idea that I don't like the sand, or just go any kind of place. I don't like the sand coming to our place from Maui Lani, for example, or from Waihe'e to help work on a project. This whole idea was to continue a conversation with, with Native Hawaiians from that South Maui before we do anything with our resources. The one thing that I'm missing in here, and we can discuss that is.

Mr. Kalanikau, can I do a quick pause? We're at bare quorum, so if any of you are gonna turn off your cameras, we're gonna need to take a recess to abide by the Sunshine Law. So if you need a break or to step away, let me know and I can call a recess so we're not violating any laws. And if you can stay in front of your camera. Sorry, go ahead, Mr. Kalanicka.

Anyway, yeah, I see San on there. If we can add the Pohaku in.

Would like it to include Pohaku and sediment as well. Okay, let's hear from if Director Molina is on or also Deputy Robinson about the potential to add Pohaku and sediment. Is Director Molina on?

Chair, I apologize. I believe Director Molina dropped off. Staff can try and give him a call, but Deputy Director Robinson mentioned that she'd be unavailable between 2 and 3 today, but she'd jump on at 3 o'clock.

Okay. If that's the case, I don't feel super comfortable making that change without speaking to Director Molina. But I'm not opposed to it if he's not opposed to it. And it's not saying that these things cannot be removed. It's saying without consultation with the Department of OEB Resources, Native Hawaiian Organizations, or cultural practitioners from the South Maui Community Plan Area, So I think my recommendation for now is to table 2.3.10, check in with Director Molina and Deputy Robinson about the potential for adding Pohaku and sediment to this condition. I don't have issue with the way it's written. in the recommended changes. Just want to check in with Public Works and OEB resources before adding in Pohaku and sedimentation. Any objections to that? Okay. So 2.3.10, I'll mark it as a revisit when we have the appropriate resources. 2.3.11 was a recommendation from the Planning Commission with no changes recommended on down. I do not have a problem with 2.3.11. We already discussed that SLRECSA has a definition in appendices and that addresses one of my questions. Any objections to moving on to 2.3.12? Okay, here we go. 2.3.12 was originally recommended by the department. No changes made at the CPAC level. The MPC level talked about green fire breaks, fire resistant native plants encouraged. and then some minor drafting guidelines. My main question, and I don't think emergency management is on, but maybe Deputy Fujioka, where it says, require all development to incorporate defensible space around its perimeter and provide blah, blah, blah. What we had learned after the fire was the recommendation is five feet of this defensible space. Is it preferable to be specific in the amount? Like the studies of places that have burnt down said that if you maintain five feet of dispensable space around your perimeter, your chances of burning down are less. Would there be a problem legally to say five feet or does the fire department have any? And then I guess, you know, in the requirement of it, it's... I know Kaua'i is or was prior to Lowell discussing changes to their code regarding the five or defensible space and firewise building principles. Is Deputy Fujioka on?

Chair, Deputy Chief Fujioka is online and I believe the CIP Coordinator for Fire and Public Safety, Michael Arisumi is also online.

Deputy Chief, do you oppose a foot requirement on defensible space around development?

So I think from what I understand from this, they're also going to work this on that WUI code that they're working on amending. as far as our fire code. So I think this might be caught in that code also. And I think it's just sticking with the recommendations or the practices from what California is doing. And I believe Kauai is on the same page.

Okay. And is the foot recommendation five feet?

For my recollection, it is.

Okay. I guess Corporation Council, is there any issue that you see with putting the five feet in now for South Maui Community Plan if it gets adopted before those types of code changes that occur?

I think it could lead to some legal complications. It's hard to say for certain, but I could see scenarios where having a hard set foot restriction, yeah.

Okay. All right then, since it seems Deputy Chief Fujioka said this is already in the works to set a standard of five feet and there could potentially be legal considerations, I have no issue with leaving it as is. Mr. Weltman, any comments?

Just a comment that best practices change, so I think it's a good idea to leave these things to the professionals who, I mean, as the standards progress. If anything, you might just want to defer to defensible spaces as defined by or something like that, just to...

Okay, yeah, good point, good point. Just like Slorexa, we're not putting in 3.2 because that changes as well. Good point. So I'm not gonna recommend any changes for 2.3, 3.12. My understanding is Director Molina has joined the conversation. Director Molina, are you on? Hi, good afternoon. We had a question on policy 2.3.10. which talks about sand may not be moved between Moku without consulting with Department of OIV resources, Native Hawaiian organizations, or cultural practitioners from South Maui Community Plan area. There was a request to add, in addition to sand, pohaku and sediment that comes down during the floods. and we just were wondering, and it's not saying it can't be moved, that it may not be moved without consultations. Do you have an opinion on that or do you have some advice for us on that?

Yes, Zach.

And this is the bottom policy as you see on the share screen. We're looking at the language in the far right corner, bottom corner, and adding Pōhaku and sediment to the policy.

And what is the goal we're talking about here?

Do not move sand, pohaku and sedimentation from the moku without consulting with Department of OEB resources, Native Hawaiian organizations and cultural practitioners from South Maui Community Plan. Mr. Kalanikau, can you explain

I guess I was trying to understand 2.3 relates to resiliency.

Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, it relates to ready and resilient systems and a policy on how sand as well as I guess pohaku and sediment may be moved from the moku.

There's just a lot of context here that I think is missing from being able to understand the objective. Because we're talking about any and all materials that may be related to construction activities or any commercial activities, as well as our maintenance activities. and all of that has different triggers for you know shpd reviews or other types of reviews that may be applicable um and so i mean yeah we don't well i don't think there's necessarily opposition it's just more like understanding the extent of the process.

Maybe we can hear from Mr. Kalanicka. My understanding was it was in the context of, you know, clearing out the gulches before or after these storm events. But I'll let him elaborate because that was just my understanding. I'm not sure if that's what the intention was.

Yeah. How's it, Jordan? So being around all that work that public work does and our contractors that we use to remove sediment and all that. And just from my Kanaka point of view on how we manage our resources, these are resources from the South Maui. And on the context part, I agree with you because it would trigger different, process, I guess, when there's a project that kicks in. But I think the most important part is the consultation. And just so we all know that it's not a Vernon thing. I think it's a good practice that we check where the puak is coming from, where the sand coming from, where the settlement going to. Because back in the old days, Well, kind of old, not me, my parents, them guys, those old days. It was a thing at that time, too, where just take soil from different areas and bring them in your place, and then you bring invasive species or... or certain seeds that no belong in that area that spread out. But in this case, when it floods in South Maui, everything comes down that hill, so we get everything from Mauka anyway. The whole idea is managing the resource. We all know that those resources have a big dollar value to it. I learned that it's a commodity when it comes to sand, pohaku, and the sediment. Private users like, like, use them, sell them and all that. Um, I'm okay with. being open on how we can use it. For example, we get pohaku in the gulch right now. That would be nice if we can have a place to store it in South Maui because there are ideas to restore the fishpond. And the fishpond at Koi'ie did come from, the pohaku did come from Kulaniha Koi'i and probably elsewhere too. But it's a conversation or consultation of managing the resources collectively and agreeing does it make sense where we're sending our resources and also vice versa. What are we receiving from Central? So I'm in the know anyway in a lot of the projects that happen in South Maui. I'm just involved anyway and you know that, a lot of people know that. So I hope I make sense where it's not saying no that we cannot, just have it just move wherever we want it to move. It's just having the discussion with those from the MOKU, whether it be Hawaiian organization, Native Hawaiian, or advisors, or even with OAB department, if that is helpful.

Does that clarify it for you at all, Mr. Director Molina?

I knew you was going to put it like that, yeah. I think I heard more about resource management than sand specifically. I also heard more about debris flows in there than just any kind of material movement. I think there's a bigger conversation to unpack really what the objective here, but we don't object to managing those materials as resources um and i think i would request that we work with oev resources who becomes our resource for who the right people are because um it's hard to know who's the right nho and who's the right cultural practitioner to be talking to. And so we look forward to relying on OEV resources to guide us in that area.

Thank you. Yeah, they are listed. I guess what comes to mind for me is when we experienced like Kona Lo 1, 2, and 3, there was very short time frames between each one and in some of the occasions we were scrambling to empty the water or whatever it may be from Kona Lo 1 in preparation for Kona Lo 2 and from Kona Lo 2 in preparation for Kona Lo 3. That's the only pause that it would give me that we're on the goal for ready and resilient systems. I wouldn't though like to give just an exemption for like emergency circumstances because we've seen that in the past where that has been taken advantage of by multiple different administrations at multiple different times. But I do see Member Rollins-Fernandez has her hand up so she may have something to add.

Okay, so similar to Director Molina, it sounds like there's two things going on. One is the resources that appear in the ahupua'a or along the shoreline during storm events. and movement of resources that may fall under mauka to makai watershed management i we haven't started that and i didn't look at all the policies i don't know if it's under there but it still sounds like it's separate i think the the why we should do it is very clear and i'm supportive of that The how part wasn't as clear and I heard Director Molina ask that question. So maybe the question for Mr. Kalanicko is like, what would that process look like? and would consultation, as Director Molina said, with Director Molitao be sufficient, or would consultation happen by the OEV department, or what were your thoughts in both during a storm event and not a storm event?

And just to clarify too, so we're in goal 2.3 which is ready and resilient systems and the header of this policy section is climate change and sea level rise. So the policies, I think that's why sand is prominently there because climate change and sea level rise, ready and resilient systems. But please go ahead for Member Rollins' question.

Right, but we're also discussing pohaku.

Yes. Potentially adding, yeah. And like we saw with Lowell, a lot of pohaku came up from the ocean from that storm. And in West Maui, we just kind of pushed it to the side.

And you also mentioned the soil that comes down. Oh, okay, go ahead.

Yeah, to answer your question, so hearing from Jordan Molina, I agree with him when we're talking about who would be that person to be consulted or the NHL. Because right now I had a guy and I don't mind being the guy, but I'm not going to be around a long time, forever. So who would carry that? Right now it works fine where I'm at. but I think having an OEV department work with Public Works makes sense because I do trust them that they're going to reach out to the different MOKUs and the kupuna and so on. If that makes sense.

Chair, if I may. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, so I just want to kind of help suggest appropriate placement for this because I think the issue is the management of resources, not necessarily what action is generating movement of the resource, whether it's a storm, whether it's a development, whether it's maintenance. I think that's not the issue here. The issue is more what do you do with those materials generally? And so the resource management, I think, is something we're supportive of, and we've been working with OEB to find better means and methods for disposition. But to say sand shouldn't be moved, I don't think is supported. Even, you know, culturally speaking, the heiau were not built with stone from that area. The resources had to be collected from other moku because certain moku only contain certain resources. So I don't think it's the movement that's the issue. It's the ultimate disposition and the use of those resources and making sure that's done in an appropriate way, I feel is the real objective here.

So maybe goal 2.5, responsible stewardship of... and historic properties?

That seems more appropriate. And that's, yeah, so that's where, like, in the case of cleaning out the gulches, like, we don't have a place in Kihei to put that stuff in the urgent, you know, in those response times. So we've been moving the materials to a holding site in Waikapu. And from there, you know, they've been brought back into the moku when we need to do restorations along South Kihei Road. So yeah, I just suggest that I don't think it's the movement that's the issue, it's the ultimate disposition and management of those resources when they become, you know, removed or displaced from the land. Thank you.

So as far as the way it's written right now and just talking about SAN 2.3.10, and consulting with Department of OEB Resources, because this is in the Ready and Resilient Goal, Climate Change and Sea Level Rise. Do you have a problem with it, the way that it was recommended, that says consultation with Department of OEB Resources?

the question you're asking director molina oh oh yeah no we so i mean public works is supportive of working with oev and through oev and having them be our conduit into the community organizations we need to be connected to and that are you know appropriate for the location thank you

Okay, Department of OEB Resources, you concur that you have a good working relationship with Department of Public Works as far as sand being moved out of the Mokus in South Maui?

Yes, mahalo. Sorry, I missed the question. I just logged back in from another meeting. But yes, we absolutely enjoy our time working together with Public Works and appreciate them for allowing us to be a part of those kinds of decisions. And so, yes.

And we may be crafting another policy when we come to Vahikupuna and historic properties about the moving of resources such as sand, pohaku, and sediment with consultation of you folks. But that was contemplated for this specific policy, but Director Molina indicated it may be better in Goal 2.5 about the moving of resources. potentially maybe one of the members may have a policy for 2.5 along those lines about the moving of resources out of the MOKU with consultation, natural resources I guess, with consultation with OEV resources or others. So just foreshadowing, I guess, if a member wants to pick that up. But that being said, I will entertain a motion to amend 2.3.10 to the language as recommended on Attachment 3A, page 50, which would insert Department of OEB Resources prior or before Native Hawaiian organizations. Sorry, before we do that, Mr. Nunakawa had his hand up.

Just wanted to... point out that the current language in there, there was some discussion about how to address emergency situations. And because of how the language is constructed, there could be complications if you try to create exceptions in maybe the code or something that isn't

in the community plan.

Yeah, because this just, the way it reads is that any movement requires consultation. And so does that mean that each individual movement needs to be assessed? So I'm not sure exactly the best way to word it, but it could, there might be ways to word it better or to accompany it with code change in inserting that into the code so that it can be better defined than what the ability we have in the community plan?

I mean, for sand, I can't imagine an emergency reason we'd need to move sand out of a moku. But when it was pohaku and sedimentation, like that may be coming down the stream and we're like prepping for the next konolo and the next konolo, that was more what I envisioned as an emergency situation and we're not, there yet like i mean i'm not seeing sand moving to a different moku really being an emergency situation it was more on the pohaku and sedimentation in the gulch as we as all the pictures that he had showed us shows the gulches like reaching up to the bridges and things like that causing that um kind of potential threat to life and property but if we're just talking about sand i know sand can be like you know overwhelming and stuff but i I'm not sure I see a emergency predicament where we couldn't talk to OEV resources about moving it, but I do see the director's hand up. So maybe I'm not picturing a situation.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, the last event we just experienced, the impact was from storm surge and the inundation on the road was sand from the shoreline that warranted us immediate removal to restore access over South Kihei Road.

Did you need to move it emergency from the Moku in a driving manner that you weren't able to consult with the Department of OEB Resources?

I mean, if they are able to respond timely, then that's not an issue. But yeah, I mean, that material, you know, I mean, unless fire is okay with that access route being down, which we understand that's generally not preferred, we would be mobilizing to move that off as immediately as possible. And then currently our staging area is not in the Boku.

Thank you. You wouldn't just push it back into the ocean? No.

No. That's a whole other set of permits involved with that.

Okay. Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Hello, Chair. Maybe this is a question for Mr. Kalanicko. So in the different scenarios, Would pre-consultation before storm surges meet this need? We know when there's gonna be heavy rain, potentially mud flood with Pohaku. We can discuss with OEV resources and public works where those are gonna go and that it be approved beforehand. So when it happens, it's not like we're waiting on approvals from OEV department and community members. And then same with when a hurricane is passing through and there's the eight to 10 foot south swell and there's sand all over South Kihei Road, that the plan for where the sand would temporarily be staged or stored, be already approved beforehand. And then that way public works isn't, and fire isn't concerned about them not moving it quickly enough.

Mr. Kalanicka.

So hearing our conversation from everyone, I think we're heading in that direction. Yeah, because I personally don't want to be there like, you guys look and start until we get, I'm not going to let that happen, but I make myself available. So there are times where I do give advice like, no dig over here, you can take from over here. But But I do it in a way where we evolving and we make the best we can in the moment kind of stuff. So I think we're heading in that direction, Keone, in creating something that when this occur all the time, that we're gonna have something in place with the OEV department and Public Works. I think that's where we're heading from today on. I think we're gonna just get better on this, yeah.

Sounds good. Deputy Robinson?

Mahalo. In the past events, we at the Department of OIV Resources understood that the Department of Public Works has a storage area for pohaku and other materials that are emergently moved and that it is in the Waikapu area. um and we were okay with that it's the community's preference to keep materials from the same moku in that moku and there's a lot of worries and fears about folks harvesting from one area and you know stealing and taking to another area so you know at any time we're always going to give preference to that area but you know, I agree with Vernon, we're moving to a place where each moko is going to have to share amongst each other. And that's okay, too. From a cultural perspective, some ahupua'a are richer in other things that other ahupua'a may be lacking in. And if it's okay with the community, and, you know, like, again, I agree with Vernon, I cannot be there. I'm not sure if we'll have staff that will be there at every, you know, opportunity or every chuck load or when Director Molina needs us to be there to approve it. But I think working beforehand and understanding what the community preferences are, what folks in the community would like to see happen with those kinds of materials, and then understanding and representing that public works is doing their best to be mindful and conscientious about what happens to these material assets. So we've been treating it almost like a almost like a grant application where they would come in and we would weigh the project that they want to do in terms of cultural appropriateness, where materials would be. We have only done one project and it stayed in the same moku, but we'd like to further develop that with Public Works.

Thank you. Mahalo, everyone. Mahalo, Chair.

Sure. Ms. Komkowicz? The first I would like to remind everyone there are certain place times that the community plan is triggered and that's when an SMA permit is needed. These are emergency situations we're discussing currently. Um, it might be advisable to have something that says for emergency situations, a pre authorized agreement can be created or something. Sorry, that was really loose language.

or a pre-authorized consultation or recommendation for emergency situations is preferred or is encouraged? Oh, encouraged. A lot of people like that word. Mr. Nunakawa, are you deep in thought?

Yeah, I'm trying to think. Procedures may be created in case of maybe pre-established to address emergency situations or something, but if you... I can try to work on wordsmithing it.

Okay. So the purpose and intent would be for pre-established procedures to be implemented for emergency situations. This policy here would only be triggered really if there is an SMA permit involved, not necessarily for like an emergency hurricane action. So did we have a motion on the floor? No, okay. So we can work on the emergency language, but I think this policy with the addition of Department of OAB resources would be okay because it's triggered as Ms. Komkowicz said, when there is an SMA permit, not for an emergency. Did you have something else to add?

Based on this conversation, it might be good to create a related action. Oh, related action, okay.

Let's make a note of that for a related action when we get to section four. So at this time, given... the discussion we've had, I will entertain a motion to adopt or replace the 2.3.10 policy in your draft book with the recommended changes on Attachment 3A, page 50, that would add in Department of OEB resources. Moved by Member Johnson, seconded by Member Sinensi. And we did have a big, long discussion. This is triggered by an SMA permit, which is not necessarily an emergency situation. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

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

and Mr. Nunakawa might be working on language for a policy for pre-authorization during emergencies and we may be having an action item later on when we get to section four. So before that, we left off on 2.3.13, and the recommended change was to delete this one. I did see that there is an action item that is almost verbatim of 2.3.13, and that would be action 3.14, and that is on page 130. of section four in your draft plan book. So is there any objection to deleting 2.3.13? It's almost word for word, action 3.14 on page 130 of your draft plan.

No objections, Chair. I see Council Member Cook's hand.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion to delete 2.3.13 on page 42 of your draft plan. Moved by Member Johnson. Seconded by Member Cook. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, seven ayes, zero nos to excuse. Members Patongan and Sugimura, motion passes.

Thank you. Next, we're moving on to 2.3.14 about the resilience of the transportation system. and there was some changes recommended regarding drafting guidelines. I would like to see if Deputy Director Kraust is online. We heard during testimony on Monday night from a testifier that has, I'm not sure if she was elderly and disabled, but an elderly parent that lives in South Maui and was very concerned about securing not only her family, but her mother as well. And as we've seen through the Lahaina fires, through the fires that were in the LA area, a lot of times it's our elderly and disabled that succumb to these types of disasters because they can't they can't run like a normal person could run or they can't climb into a bus or things like that. So is Ms. Krause on? My question is, is the Department of Human Concerns, do they have any policy recommendation in regards to this improving the resilience of the transportation system? and specific to assistance for our elderly and disabled since we're talking about ready and resilient systems, fire and emergency management section of this goal. Do you have any recommendations on maybe strengthening this policy to address the transportation needs of our elderly and disabled during emergency management situations?

Good afternoon, chair and council members. Thank you very much for that question. I would not say that the department specifically has policy recommendations on this, but I will say that the department has been engaged over the past few years in conversations about how can we better support this population that, as you mentioned, does have increased vulnerabilities. And there's a lot of pretty significant barriers to the feasibility of trying to create maybe sort of registries for evacuation assistance or different things. There's a lot of obstacles to overcome there. But the department has increased our efforts through our work with the Office on Aging and Countless Senior Services to further support create resources and information for our kupuna to help them better understand how they can maybe expand on their emergency plans how they might connect more with their neighbors or other friends who might be closer in access to them than family who might live in other districts or cities and also we're currently in conversations with mima about how we can further expand messaging outreach? So is there a way that there can be additional messaging beyond what's already out there specifically serving kupuna or people with maybe disability needs to help them have the messages as soon as possible?

Okay, so no specific policy, maybe some action or implementing action when we get to that period. Okay, Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Mahalo Chair. I know during when we were preparing for Hurricane Lala. Oh, sorry. And for sunshine purposes, my children who are minors are now home from school as well as my husband, McKenna Fernandez. So For Lala specifically, the county had partnered with MEO to get folks who needed help to shelters. I remember that being in place in the past so much, but that was a concern that was brought to my attention earlier. And so they were also doing it on Maui. So I thought that was great to have those kind of discussions beforehand. And it was... folks would reach out directly to the service provider and not our human concerns department managing a list of some sort. It was self-service kind of thing. But I thought that was great.

Do you think that could be made into an action item or a policy?

Yeah, maybe. And those buses also all had wheelchair capabilities to pick up folks. So that was, yeah. Again, I think we're heading in the right direction and happy to support an action item similar to that. Maybe even having contracts with others if necessary. But MEO was great.

Okay, I guess when we get to section four, we'll try to keep that in mind if we can add an action item. I haven't committed to memory all the existing action items in 2.3, so maybe there is something there and maybe we can craft something when the time comes. The only other feedback I had on 2.3.14 is pluralization of non-English words. and I'm not sure if that's substantive or non-substantive, but I would just leave it as tsunami rather than tsunamis because it's a bastardization of English and Japanese language. Mr. Weltman.

Very minor thing, there should be a comma after wildfires, otherwise it's really hard to read.

Oh, comma after wildfire. I do see a comma after wildfires in the booklet. Oh, you're at the matrix, the matrix. Okay, so taking out the S, is that a non-substantive? Okay, moving, would anyone else, would anyone like to propose an amendment for 2.3.14, given the lengthy discussion we've had? I think I just have that non-substantive striking of the S. Anyone else? No, okay. 2.3.15 and 2.3.16, I didn't have any changes recommended. Consultant Appliance Objection. Yeah, I'm okay with 2.315 and 2.316 as they appear in our South Maui Community Draft Plan on page 42. If members have any recommendations for amendment, I'll entertain them now, but seeing none, Moving forward, for 2.3.17, I do like the recommended changes, which is require new structures that are to serve as emergency shelters to be built through hurricane and fire resistive standards. I did have some questions on that one. Like how would planning know that a new structure is to serve as an emergency shelter and maybe for a fire? I know a lot of our shelter buildings, we want to try and retrofit them to EHPA3. Should we call out three or higher or is there a reason it wasn't called out? So those would be my two questions probably to planning and to fire. And do the buildings or the structures need to be a public place or private, commercial?

It would likely be in the SMA application if it's going to be an emergency shelter and it's likely going to be a public building. The other thing is?

What if the public shelter wasn't in the SMA? What if it was outside of the SMA? Because, I mean, realistically, if it's a public shelter for a tsunami, I would prefer it to be outside of that.

So that would be a good thing to put in the action item, which is where the second half of this policy went.

Oh, okay. Can we make a note... what we're gonna put in the action item if it's an emergency shelter outside of the SMA?

Just to include, well, if you want it outside the SMA, then put that, but also that the same thing, structures, new buildings need to be built to hurricane resistive standards as well as upgrading.

Okay, Mr. Nunakawa.

And if I'm understanding your question correctly, it also could be either action item or to create legislation related to that for outside of the SMA area, but it also could be just proposing concurrent legislation related to that to increase the standards. I'm not exactly sure the current standards, so that might be something to check.

Because I believe for West Miami Community Plan, we specified EHPA through, at a minimum, but I might be wrong. So you're saying concurrently or after we finish this update process, we could create legislation to require new structures that are to serve as emergency shelters built to EHPA3 or something like that?

Yeah, I would want to go and look into what the requirements are and the legal considerations, whether it's something that has strict requirements already related to federal requirements or state requirements. might be a better way to address if it's not just for these things that would trigger the community plan.

Okay. Deputy Chief Fujioka, any comment on the discussion to this point?

I have no comment. I do have our fire prevention captain on as well. I'm not aware of any legal things that court counsel was talking about. I'm not sure if our prevention bureau has more insight on this, but he can chime in if he has anything.

Would that be Officer Voss?

Captain Purdy is on right now.

Oh, okay. Captain Purdy, do you have anything to add?

Hi, Chair. Thank you very much. I think as far as trying to figure out whether a structure or an emergency structure would need to be pardoned would probably have to come with some type of scope of work so that we know what that building is going to be used for, whether it's going to be used for emergency purposes. Otherwise, we don't have anything that would require them to to make it into emergency shelter right now we are trying to work with that inside a WUI code, a Wilderness Urban Interface code. So we are currently working with that to try and see if we can have some type of maps that would require certain buildings or neighborhoods with that type of fire resistant materials.

Okay, thank you. Member Uhu Hodgins?

Thank you, Chair. I'm wondering if Public Works Director Molina can also give us his thoughts. I'm trying to look up the current IBC because I just asked this question. Actually, you asked this when we were talking about the Patya Mill redevelopment, so I sent them a letter. I just got them back. Unfortunately, that letter was kind of specific to older structures, but I did read in the current IBC that there are requirements for public buildings, and so I was wondering if you could tell us what is currently required and how this would either help or hinder.

Director Molina, are you still on? Oh, he had to leave at 3 p.m. and he can return at 4 p.m., but we... we're gonna work till 345, so, yeah. I guess I'm okay with the broad language. If we need to revisit for more specificity when we finish the section, I would just note a minor non-substantive change. The booklet says require new buildings that serve as emergency shelters and the recommended changes require new buildings that are to serve. That can be non-substantive, right? Okay. Does anyone have a recommendation for change on this? Seeing none, okay. For 2.3.1, yes, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Sorry, does that not change the meaning of that policy?

To add the word?

Changing the that to two?

No, changing it to the recommended language, which adds R2. But in the booklet, it says require new buildings that serve as emergency shelters.

Oh, I see it, okay.

Yeah, so just...

It removes buildings.

Yeah, require new structures that are to serve as emergency shelters to be built to hurricane and fire resistive standards where the recommended changes and they thought it was non-substantive. Okay. Okay, thanks. Okay, if you can flash for us up the evolution of policy 2.3.18. This was a policy originally proposed by the CPAC. The MPC slightly amended it to current and future development must adhere to be consistent. then the recommended changes become development must adhere to and be consistent with the public trust doctrine and the state water code, which includes the Maui Island Water Use Development Plan. I think the essence is captured in all three, but the recommended changes has probably the prettiest language or wording or structure. So I'll entertain a motion to amend 2.3.18 on page 43 and replace it with the recommended language on attachment 3A, page 54 for recommended changes. Moved by member Cook, seconded by member Johnson. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, I see six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members Sinensi, Betongan, and Sigimora. Motion passes.

Okay. 2.3.19 and 2.3.20 seem to be really similar. or kind of redundant. It looks as though in the recommended changes, the policy of 2.3.19 was more split up into 2.3.19 and 2.3.20. The recommendation for 2.3.19 says, require new developments to use landscaping that minimizes water use with drought resistant and microclimate appropriate design and plants, emphasizing native species historically present in the specific area. And then all the catchment stuff is then put in 2.3.20. Use of catchment systems and gray water were available and allowed by the State Department of Health, where non-potable use is a little bit different than what was in the booklet for 2.3.20. Any objection to hearing from Mr. Weltman?

The main difference from the original proposal is elimination of trees. I think trees do play a very special role in terms of cooling and capturing moisture and transpiration. So I would like to see that come back again.

where it says appropriate design and plants, should we put including trees, emphasizing native species, or planning, do you know why the word trees was taken out?

It was taken out at my planning commission and I would have to review the minutes as to why. I don't see a problem with putting it back in.

Okay, I mean, they may have thought that plants encompasses trees, but we can specifically call out trees. I have no issue with that. And that's for 2.3.19, you're saying, Mr. Weltman?

Yes, exactly.

Okay, so I will entertain a motion to amend 2.3.19 in page 43 of our draft plan to say, require new developments to use landscaping that minimizes water use with drought resistant and microclimate appropriate design and plants including trees, comma, emphasizing native species historically present in the specific area.

So moved. Second.

Moved by Member Rollins-Fernandez, seconded by Member Johnson.

Chair, sorry, just for clarification, are we just inserting trees or is the committee reinserting the original language that was inserted by CPAC? Because I see here, overstory trees to reduce evapotranspiration.

Oh, I'm okay with that. Including overstory trees to reduce evapotranspiration. Is the move on okay with that wording? And the second is okay. So including trees, including overstory trees to reduce evapotranspiration. Okay, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, I'm seeing six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members Patongan, Sugimura, and Sinensi, motion passes.

Thank you. And then I will entertain a motion to amend 2.3.20 on page 43 of the draft plan to say use of catchment systems and gray water where available and allowed by the State Department of Health for non-potable use. So moved. Moved by Member Rollins-Fernandez, second by Member Johnson. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, once again, six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members Sinensi, Sugimura, Betancur, motion passes.

Okay. Ryan, can you bring up what became 2.3.21? All right, so this is policy originally recommended by the planning department. It started out as policy 2.3.15 and ended up as policy 2.3.21. I think the essence of it was maintained. Mr. Weltman, any comments?

Since we have Vice Chair, CPAC Vice Chair Kanahele present, I wonder if we could have him say a couple words about this, because I think he was the one who expressed this language.

Mr. Kanahele, would you like to join Mr. Weltman at the desk and say a few words about 2.3.21 and if you have any objection to its evolution through the planning commission and CPAC and drafting guideline review? and we had previously designated Mr. Kanahele as a resource.

Just an overall view of water. Water is the most important resource to the Kanaka Maoli. That's why the word for wealth is waiwai. So it deserves to be the highest priority as a natural resource because without water, there wouldn't be life on this island. We just have a rock, very dry rock. So I'm sorry, what was the question?

Mr. Weltman asked if you'd share your mana'o on this one.

That was my beginning mana'o.

It did change slightly through CPAC draft, MPC draft, and the drafting guideline recommendations. I felt that it just streamlined the verbiage and it maintained the essence of what the point of the policy was.

So you're just taking out above all else, that's what it looks like, right?

Yeah, yeah, because that's kind of the definition of prioritizing.

Highest priority, yeah, I get you. No, I'm 90% fine with that.

All right then. Charlie, did you have a question? Or you're just agreeing? my microphone wasn't on i said so moved oh so moved all right well um if we're not changing it there's no need to move anything mr nunakawa sorry it took me a little a while uh i was trying to understand uh 2.3.18 um the previous motion um

Do have some concern just because I'm not clear on what overstory trees, how we're defining that as well as the extent that is required if we're saying that it's a requirement for all new developments and including overstory trees to reduce evapotranspiration. I'm not sure. how extensively that requirement applies compared to just the landscaping requirement. Do we have a definition of overstory trees?

Isn't it just trees that allow other plants to grow underneath them and don't choke everything else out like how ironwoods do? You can have an understory and an overstory. I mean, I'm no tree person, but I know ironwoods choke out everything underneath them. But native trees share that.

the overstory trees are the highest layer in the canopy. I mean, we would have to put a definition in there. Um, I think the purpose of this is to actually have a canopy although Daniel Kanaheli would be a good person to ask on this as well as he is the one who proposed that, I also do have an issue with saying evapotranspiration because evapotranspiration is a good thing. It should just say evaporation.

Okay, Mr. Kanaheli, did you wanna share with us about your understanding of overstory trees?

So much of the leeward side of the island, including what we call Kihei, South Maui District, the lowland dry forest was the main, I guess, the main forest of that area. And it did have upper story trees, like you mentioned, Chair, that protected the understory trees. So you would, one of the upper story trees would be the woolly woolly tree. And it allowed for smaller plants, smaller native plants to grow underneath it. But the upper story trees of any forest capture water and they say the rain follows the forest. So anywhere where you reestablish forests and it's happening all over the world, it brings more water naturally. So the upper story trees are key to capturing water and allowing for the percolation of that water using the lower story trees to also grab the water, hold it, and give it time to percolate down into the earth and recharge the aquifers like our Kamaoli aquifer. So yeah, upper story trees are very, very important. I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to be a native tree. You have many upper story trees like monkey pods, they're not native, kiawe, they're kind of a nuisance plant. But yeah, just in general, upper story trees are important part of the ecosystem.

So is the concern that since this one says require, then if people don't plant the overstory trees, they're not in compliance, and if that's the case, you wanna add a to the extent practicable in there or an encourage instead of require if we're gonna go with the overstory trees?

I think that would be helpful, Chair. One of... The concerns I have is if there's a small parcel in the SMA, I'm not sure the size requirement for an overstory tree, which is why I was trying to figure out the definition whether an overstory tree on a very small parcel would lead to limitations on what else can be done on there.

Okay, then to our CPAC resources in the room today with us, are you amenable to using, including the word with overstory trees with, was it just evaporation to the extent practicable or? Would you like to leave out the overstory trees and not have to the extent practicable?

Just going back to the evapotranspiration, I think we should use that term because that is the IPCC term. It defines... The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change defines it as the combined processes through which water is transferred to the atmosphere from open water and ice surfaces, bare soil, and vegetation that make up the Earth's surface. So evapotranspiration is different from evaporation. Do you want to comment about the require versus encourage?

Or to the extent practicable?

Can we hear from planning?

Planning, any comment on... You wanted to hear from planning on evapotranspiration versus... And the overstory trees. Okay, evaporation, overstory trees, evapotranspiration. Comments for Charity?

I was checking the EPA website for an official definition, but the first sentence is trees and vegetables and vegetation lower surface and air temperatures by providing shade and cooling the air through evapotranspiration. Evapotranspiration is the evaporation and the transpiration of plants. Evaporation is what comes off the soil. So we do want the evaporation that comes off plants. It has a more cooling effect than what comes off of soil. We can also just leave that out and put the canopy trees because that was also a sticking point at my planning commission because you do want plants with lower evapotranspiration, which usually native plants have. It's complex and that word is beneficial but also can be negative, so it's better just not to use it.

to not use evapotranspiration or evaporation?

Evaporation would be better in this situation, except for we're trying to ensure that the plants at the lower level are not having evapotranspiration. That's the canopy protects the lower plants from evapotranspiring too quickly and getting dried out. But it's just... It's a confusing situation to use the word in and it would be better to leave it out than to include it.

Okay. So, require new developments to use landscaping that minimizes water use with drought resistant and microclimate appropriate design and plants. including trees when practicable, emphasizing native species historically present in the specific area. Does anyone have any problem?

Okay, moved by... Did you guys want overstory trees? Sorry, just because that was the discussion.

No, because it's just getting too much. Moved by Member Rollins-Fernandez, seconded by Chair Lee. We're including trees, whether they transpire or perspire or evaporate water. And I think that's the best we can do. Okay, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

I agree with the distinction between Overstory and Canopy. But also if it's going to be required, well, I guess if it's required, then it would still be appropriate design. So I think, you know, There's all kind of shorter trees that doesn't have as much of a benefit as canopy trees. So I think since it does have appropriate design, like adding canopy so that it's a larger tree, as much as possible.

So you want to put canopy trees to the extent practicable? Yes. Friendly amendment to say canopy trees. Secondary, okay. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. Chair, you have six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members Sinensi, Sukumura, Betonga, motion passes.

And then... We left off on 2.3.21, which we were okay with it as it was moving on to wastewater. Mr. Ramirez, can you flash up to the evolution of what became policy 2.3.22? Thank you. So it started out as policy number 2.3.16, recommended by the planning department. The CPAC didn't suggest any changes. The planning commission changed a shall to a must, which I like. And then our recommended change takes out reference to specific numbers 201H, 2.96, 2.97. And it says new developments in South Maui including affordable housing and workforce housing projects must connect to county or private recycled water distribution systems when available. if recycled infrastructure is not readily available, develops must. developments must be designed to allow for future connections. And so we had previously heard about this, that the preference is to not call out the numbers which affordable housing projects could be entitled under and just call them affordable housing and workforce housing. Other than that, I think changes made at the Planning Commission to include the word must is beneficial. And so I would entertain a motion to recommend 2.3.22 in page 43 of the draft plan be amended to read as attachment 3A, page 56, recommended changes on the far right policy. Member Cook, did you have something to say or were you making the motion?

Making some move.

Making move by Member Cook, seconded by Member Rollins Fernandez. Any further discussion?

Seeing none. Briefly, I just want to say most of the commercial properties and the condominiums and whatnot, they're geared up for using R1 water because they have separate irrigation meters. So I'm hopeful that we really just keep pushing, supporting, encouraging, and pushing to use up all our R1 water. So the more we do of this, the better.

So they're already doing it or they're ready for when the R1 line comes by them?

They're doing it when the R1 line gets there, but most of the hotels and a lot of the commercial properties have dual meters. They'll have an irrigation meter that they don't pay sewer on, and then they'll have the regular meter. So for them to hook up, it's still an issue. They have to change the purple pipes and they have to worry about overspray. But in general,

uh just getting in the water and they'll be able to use it lots of folks are already ready so it makes sense to to continue this policy um for all new developments good point okay all those in favor raise your hand and say aye chair six i zero knows three excuse members tsukimura batonga and senancy motion passes thank you um Okay, Mr. Ramirez, can you flash up what became 2.3.23 from what was proposed as 2.3.17? Now this is one of those changes. It was started as support. CPAC put require when legal and safe. The, Mr. Ramirez, can you take that part that's in MPC draft policy, can you close it or no? At the MPC, it said require the use of gray, although it's covered up, require the use of gray water and recycled water. In county parks, they added greenways and community gardens. They included the when legal and safe. And then the recommended changes takes all that and brings us back to support. So it went from support to require to support. So I'm thinking we need to probably hear from Corporation Council here about the changes from support to require to support or maybe planning.

Parks is already doing this when they can. The challenge is if the lines don't exist, then we can't require them to. So it's better to put support here because they will when they can, but we can't say you have to if there's no source.

Are our CPAC resources okay with this change knowing, oh, and if you would like to hear from Mr. Frampton is, are you just verifying what Ms. Komkowicz said?

Oh. Yeah, thank you, Chair. I was just gonna confirm that this is something that we, We absolutely support the use of recycled water. The gray water is a little bit different. The gray water recycling water, that requires typically, I think, a separate facility to create the recycled gray water and capture it. But for example, in our South Maui Regional Park, we have fully connected to the recycled water and phase two and three, which is coming up, that you folks approved in the budget, is absolutely connecting to the, continue to connect to the Recycled water and we like that concept of reducing the injection wells rate and whatnot. So it's we support that but to require is Might be a little challenging Thank you infrastructure. It has not yet gotten there in some key that is correct and also just Questioning that two point three point two zero uses encourage for catchment and greywater and then two point three point two two It does include, is it must? Connect, yeah. I think if it's there and if it's available, we're absolutely connecting to it. And if it's not, we would design for the future ability to receive it. But we're very much, I think this is a great idea. It's gonna happen in Central Maui Regional Park. It's happening, we have a gray water facility being designed and built in Kanaha Beach Park. So we're very much good to that. We just like the ability of what you folks would like to see happen is using that gray water.

Okay. Member Rollins-Fernandez, did you have your hand up or no?

I did. I was gonna ask Mr. Frumson about Kanaha if that, cause I think that's gray water. That's a gray water, considered a gray water system, right?

Yes, you're correct. It's a gray water recycling facility, and 2.2, I'm sorry, 2.3 point... 2.3. 2.3 does say gray water and recycling water.

Mm-hmm, yeah. With something like the transition to 100% graywater or recycled water or something like that?

Sure. I think giving us the option, because we clearly are able to do the recycled water right now, and the idea of if funds were given to us to develop a graywater recycling facility, that's nice too. But for right now, maybe ore, that might be a nice way to address this. Thank you.

Okay. And then maybe we can ask Mr. Weltman if that was the, that's my read on it. Like, you know, like we'd like it to, like our county parks to all be reusing water and not using potable water for the maintenance of our parks and gardens. Yeah.

Absolutely, and Central Maui Regional Park, for example, it's gonna be a great opportunity to do that with the new wastewater treatment system that's going in. So great way to do integrated resource management. Thank you.

Mr. Wilkley?

I think we're all on the same page. Just another way to express that would be require the use of gray water and recycled water in county parks, greenways, and community gardens when available, legal, and safe.

Mr. Nunakawa, do you have any problems with that verbiage?

Not necessarily. Do you know if there's a correlated action for this one? Only concern would be related to determining safe and whether that should be something in the code on how to make that determination of when the use is safe or not.

Wouldn't it be the State Department of Health that makes that determination or no?

I think it potentially, I'd have to go and check if there's anything related.

Okay, there is related action.

Do we specify though, in this case, State Department of Health determination? That would be the only concern is just defining how we make that determination.

Okay, Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. The State Department of Health regulates it from beginning to end And then also, who's ever using the R1 water needs to have somebody who's designated as the kind of overseer. That's why currently it isn't available for individual homes. It's available for residential condo, like Maui Lani, places that have an association, and they might be feeding it so they have somebody taking care of it overall. Because you can't, an individual house can't hook up to R1.

Yeah.

But it's heavily regulated and it's also heavily facilitated by the government. I just wanted to weigh in on that.

Thank you. So Mr. Nunakawa, you do not have issue with the require the use of gray water or recycled water in county parks, greenways and community gardens when available and legal and safe as deemed by the State Department of Health or do we need that?

How about permissible? When available and permissible?

by the State Department of Health.

By whoever.

Yeah, I think if it's, like Council Member Cook mentioned, heavily regulated, if we added the language permissible, then I think that that would be.

Do we need to say permissible by State Department of Health or just permissible?

I think permissible would be all right.

Legally permissible.

Legally, yeah.

Legally permissible.

Okay, I will entertain a motion to amend 2.3.23 on page 43 of the, draft plan to say require the use of gray water or recycled water in county parks, greenways, and community gardens when available and legally permissible. Moved by Member Johnson, seconded by Member Cook. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members Patonga, Tsukimura, and Senanze, motion passes.

All right, I don't have any amendments for 2.3.24. Or 2.3.25. 2.3.25, the recommendation is to go from eliminate to seek to eliminate the use of wastewater injection wells. Oh, shoot, I'm sorry. Before we go to that, I really did like... And it made me think of the HECO power plant. I don't know if you guys have driven past there recently. It's like right by Kalia. wetland, refuge, then there's that road, and then there's the ocean. So in the context of 2.3.24, saying support amendments to the Maui Island Plan, the community plan and change of zoning for land outside of the Slorexa for the construction of a new wastewater collection system and treatment option to serve the Ma'alaya area. Great, we want a new wastewater collection system and treatment. option to serve the Ma'alaia area, do we not need the same thing for HECO's power plant? Because electricity and water does not go well together. And so I was kind of thinking, I don't know if now is the time, but I thought because it's really similar, I would like to also see support amendments to the Maui Island plan, community plan and change of zoning for land outside of the Slorexa for the construction of a new HECO power plant. Because that power plant kind of powers, I know it powers West Maui, probably the island of Maui. So I mean, any discussion? Member Johnson.

I'm really interested in learning more and I saw Deputy Director come on the call and had his hand up.

Oh, I'm sorry, Deputy Peterson?

Thank you, Chair. I was raising my hand for the next 2.3.25, so I'll wait until we get to that one.

Okay, okay.

Okay, well, then if I can, I'd like to hear, maybe we could clean up the language, because we're supporting... The community plan, like right now, we're in the community plan, so maybe we could pretty up the language according to Corporation Council or some recommendation.

Is this for the wastewater collection system and treatment options for Ma'alaya area, or would it be for the HECO power plant, or both, since it's similar language?

Well, if we're... It's just having the community plan in there when we're working on the community plan. I mean, I would totally support having a relocation of that HECO or anything we can do to really, like you say, have the water and the electricity not mix. But I don't know if this is best to have it in here to say that, the community plan.

Yeah, I mean, I guess we're not ready to do a community plan amendment because there would need to be a feasibility study of where it would work for HECO to place it. I mean, if we knew where they were thinking of and they own the land, maybe now would be the time. But I think similar to the coastal retreat, The time isn't now, so we're supporting a policy that would support that.

All right, fair play. I follow your lead, Chair.

Okay, Chair Lee. I was gonna say the same thing. I think to make a change like this that you're contemplating, we should have a discussion with HECO.

You think they're not contemplating moving their power plant?

I think they are, but maybe they have plans already.

And I wanna support those plans, but yeah, I can call Mikey tonight.

okay good idea mr wiltman i've talked to them for many years about that they have no plans to move they i mean the uh of course they have to shut it down by 2045 in any case because we're going to get to net zero or net negative at 2045 by by state law but no they have no plans to move

Yeah, but, you know, leadership changes and, like, I mean, say there's a tidal wave tomorrow and remember Cook.

I think they just... They just... They're decommissioning the Kahului power plant after they've installed all of the solar with backup batteries so it's firm power in Waikato. And similarly, they're doing a... a Lory biogas plant over by the central landfill. So my understanding is they are implementing all of the alternate energy options and they wouldn't be phasing, they wouldn't be moving that plant because they won't be using that technology, but they're currently working towards implementing other technologies to make a self-reliant. And so that's in process. So anyway, I think they're making pretty good progress. So they wouldn't move that plant. They'll build a new smaller plant that might have some other cool methodologies. That's just feedback from meetings I've gone to. Thank you, Chair.

Okay. All right. We won't propose that now. And I think Ms. Deputy Peterson, we're ready for your input.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding 2.3.25, because of DOH regulations, we won't be eliminating or we can eliminate injection wells at the time because we need 100% backup. We would suggest instead of elimination, using the words such as minimize the use of the injection oils. Thank you.

Can you repeat the reason why we can't eliminate one more time?

So we'll always need a 100% backup Let's say we have a lot of rain in Kihei and there's no use for the R1 for irrigation and watering purposes. We'll be stuck with the water to basically inject at that point.