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

. do do Thank you. Thank you.

Will the Recess Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee meeting reconvene from September 17th, 2026, return to order. The time is now 9.05. And if everyone can please silence their cell phones or other noise-making devices that would help our cause. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, if you are not in the council chambers, please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Also, please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. My name is Tamara Paulton, and I'll be the chair for today's DRIP Committee meeting. I think Committee Vice Chair Nohe U'uhajuns will be joining us shortly, so she's excused for now. We have with us in the chamber today, Council Member Kawanoe Batangan, aloha kakahiaka.

Aloha kakahiaka kākou.

And we also have Council Member Tom Cook, aloha kakahiaka.

Aloha kakahiaka kākou. I'm working from my home office in Kihei today. I'm still a little under the weather. My son is home in one room. He's upstairs asleep. My wife is at work. And Kihei Regent's office is staffed today.

Thank you. We also have with us Councilmember Gabe Johnson. Aloha kakai ako.

Good morning, Chair, Councilmembers, community members. I'm here in my private office and ready to work. Thank you.

By yourself, right?

Yes, alone with a snoring doggy.

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

Aloha kakahiaka. I am home alone in my workspace with my menagerie of cats. I would have said, if you're going to Cambodia this weekend, the greeting over there is suste. So it's amazing how our languages like, you know, are similar. Like in Hawaii, instead of suste, we would say, ay suste. You know?

Ay sus. Ay sus. I'm sorry. I didn't know.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. And next up, we have Council Member Keani Rollins-Fernandez. Ay suste.

Aloha kakahiaka, Chair. Aloha kakahiaka kākou. I am at my private residence alone. I thought Chair Lee was going to go with shoot then.

But sus te, shoot then. I sus, yeah. Okay.

Next up, we have Council Member Shane Sinensi. Aloha kakahiaka, and I sus, where you stay?

Aloha kākāia kākākou, shoot's Dan. E ao ma'ānei maka hikina o ya wale. And yeah, happy to be here. Aloha.

Aloha, and last but not least, we have Council Member Yukile Sugimura, who is excused, she may join at 1.30. This meeting of the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee of the Maui County Council is located on the traditional aina of Kanaka'o Iwi, who never ceded their sovereignty to the United States. We recognize that Her Majesty Queen Liliuokalani yielded the Hawaiian Kingdom to the U.S. in duress under threat of violence to avoid the bloodshed of her people. We further recognize that Hawaii remains an illegally occupied nation state by the U.S. as documented in a 2021 scholarly article. for the National Lawyers Guild reveal by Andrew Reed, 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, as well as Long Range Planner Karen Komkovich. 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 Fujioka and CIP Coordinator Michael Arisuni. From the Department of Management, we have Executive Assistant Noah Jackson from the Department of OEB Resources. Deputy Director Kekai Robinson will join at 10 a.m. And I think I did see Kiahi Johnson on the call, currently. From the Department of Parks and Recreation, we have CIP Coordinator Bill Frampton from the Office of the Mayor, Economic Development Specialist Vernon Kalanikau, who isn't in the chamber with us right now. And I think from the Water Department, we have Linda Kimura. from Corporation Council. We have Deputy Corporation Council Nahulu Nunokawa and Deputy Corporation Council Michael Hopper. The other resources, in addition, We have Rob Weltman, the South Maui CPAC Chair, as well as Daniel Kanahele, the South Maui CPAC Vice Chair in the Chambers. All of these resources that we mentioned were already designated under Rule 18A yesterday. We also have DRIP Committee staff with us this morning. Senior Legislative Analyst James Krueger, Legislative Analyst Ryan Ramirez, Jarrett Pascual, Senior Committee Secretary Yvette Boutelier, Legislative Attorney Karla Nakata, and Ambassador of Aloha Ryan Martins. Let's see. That should be everybody. And oh, can somebody help Councilmember Uhu Hodgins to enable her camera? Chair Lee, you had a question or something?

Yeah, I have a question. I'm not sure. I didn't check, but Mr. Kalanicka's drone presentation on the flooding, is that on Granicus? Yeah. What number is that?

Seventeen.

Seventeen. Okay, thank you. Sure thing. That's the worst flooding I ever saw. My God. Yeah.

And I'd also like to welcome Committee Vice Chair Nohe U'uhajins to the meeting. Susté and aloha kakahiaka.

to stay chair. Aloha, everyone. I apologize for my delay. I'm at my private residence, my husband and my youngest son is home or their home. They just returned from Target, because it's the 30th year anniversary for Pokemon. So they had to go down for thing this morning. There's no school today. So he's not missing school. But so my son was showing me his new Pokemon card. So sorry, but I'm here. Thank you.

Thank you. I wish I had no school today. Okay, we have one item on the agenda, DRIP 25, Bill 108, 2026 South Maui Community Plan. As a reminder, oral testimony on DRIP 25 was closed on September 17th, 2026, but written testimony will continue to be accepted. To get us in the correct mood and the mindset, I'll remind us all about our draft South Maui vision statement. which nobody has offered to amend. So that's what it is currently. 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, members, where we left off yesterday was page 43 of the draft plan booklet. And... I mentioned that I was going to leave 2.3 open in case members had any of their own policies to propose. I did have two proposals, but I can hold them and yield to the members if they had any of their own proposals. Seeing none, I'll sketch out what my proposals were. The first one, I did talk to a couple people at MECO and they weren't opposed to the idea of one for the Ma'alaya Power Plant in case something should happen before they were ready to decommission. So the proposal would go something like support land use entitlements for land outside of the Slorexa for the reconstruction of the Ma'alaya Power Plant if needed. And I will entertain a motion to add that on. Moved by Member Cook, seconded by Member Sinensi. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those, oh, go ahead.

Chair, I just wanna say, I think it's a good forward-thinking proposal and the fact that you discussed it with people who would be engaged, I'm supportive and thank you for bringing that up.

Thank you, and that's just in case if something happens. If it doesn't need to be used, then great. All right, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

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

Nice, nice, and then my other one is kind of a broader policy in support of Coastal Retreat. I did ask if Linda Kimura could join, and I'm not sure the right wording, but it would be something like support land use entitlements for land outside of the Slorexa for the purpose of coastal retreat through the transfer of water credits or something. Because we've talked about allowing shoreline properties and things to retreat for like Ma'alaya outside of Hawa'oli Street, but we haven't really, solidified if we're supporting land use entitlements, what is the trigger that is not new development, but allowing existing development to reconstruct farther back? and I was thinking maybe the transfer of water credits or something like that would be a trigger. So it's not new development, but we're taking the water from a shoreline development that is failing or in threat of failure and then allowing them to sell their water credits or transfer their water credits to another parcel so they can retreat from the beach if they choose to. So if Miss Kimura is on.

Chair, sorry to clarify, James Jensen will actually be attending. He's coming up to the chambers.

Oh, awesome, awesome. So I mean, I don't know if you wanna talk anything about the idea of supporting land use entitlements for the purpose of coastal retreat, if we need to tie it to water credits or something along those lines. But this section is ready and resilient systems. And I think we need to start that conversation, especially in light of Lowell and whatnot. I'll go to Member Cook, then Member Batonga, and then Member Lee. Go ahead, Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. I think you're on the right track. What I What I hear and what it means to me is we're acknowledging, one, we're acknowledging, we're projecting it to happen. There's going to be impacts. The people who are currently using resources that are going to be relocating and that they have the ability to continue to use resources and not have to apply like they're a new user. It's... It's very pragmatic and practical and a lot of long ways for us to go as far as all the steps that would be required. But I think this is a good one. Thank you for bringing this up. It makes sense.

Sure, sure. And it's we don't know exactly how it's going to occur. So, I mean, in that case, broader may be better, but just like broader. we're in the policy section of Ready and Resilient Systems, so I did wanna have a policy that we support coastal retreat rather than just continue to armor the shoreline and sinkholes and all of those things. Member Batonga?

Thank you, Chair. So I appreciate you bringing this up for consideration. And I think that if we're going to encourage coastal retreat, we need to be thinking not just about land entitlements, but about the public utility infrastructure that would allow them to move as well. I just need some clarity as to what you were thinking on how this works. So I think I understood you in that there is a development on the shoreline that has water allocations already. If we're going to ask them to move, they can transfer the water allocations from their existing parcel to wherever they're moving towards. You said sell or transfer. So is this assuming that there's not going to be a I guess we're avoiding new development because it's replacement development, but it's not going to be owned by the same company or entity. Because otherwise, would the credits not be retained by that entity and Like mechanically, I'm just trying to figure out, does it need to be transferred? Can you retain those credits with you should you choose to move? And I don't understand enough about water allocations to understand all of the mechanics at play, and that's what I'm trying to get a better grasp on here.

I think none of us do, and that's why we requested Mr. Jensen or Ms. Kimura. But I think we need to envision both types of scenarios. Like maybe they do own the land behind of them that they're retreating to, or maybe they don't. And maybe they can't afford to buy the land. but they might get some insurance and if they get some money from water credits or something like that, they'll be made somewhat better off than if they lost everything, you know?

So I guess what I can say right now is that I'm supportive of the concept. I appreciate you bringing us for dialogue and I wanna continue down this line of thinking. I just don't know enough about it at the moment to be able to make a decision right now.

Yeah, and the specifics of the verbiage, I think we're a little bit waiting for Mr. Jensen. Chair Lee?

I like the concept. I think we have to be careful because there's no way we could possibly anticipate every single set of circumstances. But I think water is important. But while we're on the subject of water, if it's in Lahaina, for example, and this person is retreating to a new location, would that be considered a new or existing permit? It would be a new permit, right? So, you know, there's problems with those kinds of things.

Yeah, but I mean, this is the South Maui Community Plan, so it would only, the policy itself for this would only apply for the South Maui Community Plan area.

But what if South Maui was designated? Then what? So that's why, you know, keeping it broad is helpful. And then the other part is they not only need a water allocation, they need sewer allocation. And it would be good to talk to Public Works about what else they need in order to move and take their infrastructure credits with them.

Thank you. Sure thing. Charlie, do you mind if Mr. Jensen sits in my seat maybe? Or your seat where my seat is? My seat is fine. It's just fine. Okay. If you want to sit there and maybe put her name block down or to the side.

Can Mr. Jensen use your pillow?

I don't think he needs it, but sure.

Thank you so much for coming, Mr. Jensen. We were talking about, we're in Goal 2.3, Ready and Resilient Systems of the South Maui Community Plan, and we were entertaining a discussion about a policy that would support land use entitlements for land outside of the Slorexa for coastal retreat of shoreline properties. And we have several other policies like that, we're not currently changing the community plan because there hasn't been like a trigger of when a development would need to move back from the shoreline and so it's not like we're supporting land use entitlements for a brand new development and so the thought would be the water that was being used by the shoreline property once it becomes condemned or unsafe and they do decide we're not gonna hold our line here. We're gonna let somebody else develop or we're gonna try and develop someplace else. And what would that be called? Like transfer of water credits or is that a possibility? If it's the same owner of a property that purchased another property, do they even need to transfer credits? Can they just say, these are my credits on this parcel, I wanna move them to this parcel or how does that work?

it's a great question thank you for the question um and thanks for inviting me to discuss this kind of discussion i enjoy so um i will start off by saying that it would be wholly inappropriate for our department to allow a water right to extinguish beyond the control of the landowner and then take that back into our supply and go sell that right again. We support the concept of this because those rights were paid for at some point and they're supposed to be inflation proof. The mechanism, I think, is really just a matter of getting into the details of how the mechanism would work so we would look at the term entitlement being the the right to that quantity of of water so we wouldn't look at you know we really wouldn't weigh in on a multi-family development entitlement being shifted we would just look at the amount of water being shifted so um the term that i've seen used um would be like a detachment of that right from property A with I guess an annexation of that right into property B. I think we would approach it in a manner like that. We would of course wanna be involved in the, discussion of where that right is shifting because if that if it was a substantial right you know many thousands of gallons a day the shift of that right to property B if property B didn't front adequate infrastructure could still trigger kind of entitlement driven conditions of approval for that project to still be responsible for making sure the infrastructure is adequate. But in terms of the daily allocation of water, we would definitely support the concept and be more than willing to talk shop about how that right is detached from a property and then maybe placed into a voucher that can then be shifted or whether it's an agreement to make that shift happen all at once. I think those are kinds of details we can work out. But we do agree in the idea of protecting those rights.

And then in that detachment and shift or annexation to another property, would the person that had that right be able to sell it? Like not going through the county, but saying, I will detach my water right and you can annex it to your property for $100,000 or something like that? Um...

I would tend to be against commoditizing those rights. We've seen that happen and it doesn't lead to the best outcomes. I think that ultimately would be a policy decision to where if, yeah, Not feeling like I could support that.

Could you give us an example of a bad outcome that you've seen?

Dowling credits of country. Those were source credits that were commoditized and worth a lot. And that I could see the same thing happening again. So yeah, if there were some guardrails, perhaps, but yeah, not really sure that the mechanics could work out to make that fair. That's a tough one.

Okay, I'll open it up to the members. Chair Lee, go ahead.

Well, for one thing, I don't quite understand the connection to Dowling because from my understanding, he created the source. He developed the source. So that's different. We're talking about individual homes moving from in the shoreline. Or condo complexes, multifamily. Or condo complexes retreating. And so it sounds like the water department already um allows for something like that but maybe we need to tweak it but i was wondering is there a timeline on this do you give them five years you know or or there's no there's no limit to how long they can hold on to that those credits or vouchers as you call them mr jensen

We could look at that as if the right was detached from a property We could look at it as a permanent reservation on our books, the way that we book water, someone goes through the process, we issue them an offer to buy the rights. Currently for new offers, there's that five-year time limit. But in the case where that right has been historic, I wouldn't wanna keep a voucher on our books forever, but, I think longer timeframes would be acceptable. So I'd wanna, yeah, I'd support giving some leeway.

Thank you, thank you. Member Batonga, I see your hand up. Is that from last time or is it a new one? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask Corp Council to opine on whether or not they feel this would be more appropriately done through code rather than through the community plan?

Hello? Oh, hello. Okay, this is set for someone who maybe talks a little quieter than you. Generally, yeah, the policy language, you shouldn't, I don't think, feel necessarily like you need to plan out every aspect of what you're talking about in the plan. I think language generally stating support for that, I think assessing whether or not having that broad statement and going over the things that you know before we put the statement and we want to see that this is theoretically possible is okay but um you wouldn't necessarily be able to put all of the details in something like that in in a planned statement so i think it's okay to to generally state you're supportive of something but it is a case that um you know something like that's going to have to be dealt with um with a lot more than just the plan certainly you probably need um code consistently applied for something like that how your water rights could potentially transfer along with with other rights you'd have like what kind of new zonings would you get in that situation so um i think i'd agree with that so in a situation like this would it be more appropriate to state broadly that we support not just land entitlements but um

a public infrastructure utility to support, I don't know, coastal, I forget the term of art that Chair had proposed in her- Coastal retreat. Coastal retreat. And then work through of the details that we were just discussing-

through a code amendment? Well, I think discussing the details is probably a good idea while you formulate that policy. Yes, I think a lot of the details for something like that, you'd still need to work out through code or maybe through, you know, some types of agreements or something, like development agreements or something like that. So while the inquiry is okay, I don't think you should necessarily feel like, you know, like, you know, noting every land use change that could be required and that you support them which frankly you can't all do at this stage because a future council is going to have to look at that and approve it yeah i think you're on the right track there but still the questions i mean if you if you get a an answer that that it's a real deal breaker that's relevant information for you in formulating the policy understood and then does the department have any comments on um on approach do you guys have a preference on how we go about this

The planning department, yeah.

Sorry, yes. I just was looking at the director of planning and thought that was implied, but I guess it's not clear to anybody who's not in the chamber. Which is everybody else.

For... This policy, to be more broad, you could add it to policy 2.3.6 that says support coastal retreat of South Maui structures, you could add, and infrastructure currently located in the shoreline setback area and the Slorexa.

So I guess, Chair, do you share where my head is at? I'm supportive of the... of the concept that you proposed, but I think I would prefer to go through the mechanisms that we had just described with Corporation Council. Thank you, Chair.

Sure. Member Rollins-Chernandez, I see your hand up.

Mahalo, Chair. i guess that that's the direction that i'd support going as well um i know like in this plan we're kind of focusing on malaya and the condos there um but we're gonna have to have some kind of like county-wide policy on how this will work because everyone's got to be treated fairly and not just condos and malaya get this special treatment right There's a lot of houses that are on the shoreline. Do they get to qualify just because they're individually owned or only these like complexes get to qualify? So I think the overall discussion is much, much broader and bigger and has a lot of implications. And again, you know, Hoy is not alone in having this discussion because then it's going to come down to, you know, like... who gets stuck holding the bag and how much is the county going to be expected to contribute to the decisions that folks made in building on the so close to the shoreline, right? So I think much bigger broader discussion. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting any kind of commitments into into the community plan like that that would tie future councils or I don't know. Yeah, this is a very big discussion that we would have to have though.

I'll just keep it there. And I guess from my perspective and what we're seeing in West Maui to some extent because it has been destroyed and people still want to kind of rebuild in areas that are in the sea level rise exposure areas as we've seen. Although it's not explicit or it wasn't explicitly stated in my policy proposal, I'm thinking this transfer of entitlements or public utility reservations or uses would not be a forever type of thing. If you're willing to early address it and get out of the way before it gets so big that it turns into just an emergency where we're having to pick up pieces of your structure, and get it out of the harm's way of anybody utilizing the ocean, by that point it's too late and I wouldn't be supportive anymore. This is more for the early adapters, an opportunity. Should you choose to jump on this wagon early, here are the ways that we're trying to support you. If you hold out and go for those seawall permits with BLNR and try everything you can to not retreat, these incentives per se would not be appropriate kind of thing. So I didn't articulate that in my policy proposal, but that was part of the intention and I have no hesitation to try and include it if we come up with good verbiage. Chair Lee?

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I like where you're going with this. I like your approach. And of course, we have to be cautious not to be overly specific as member Keoni Rollins mentioned. So I was wondering, as we come across these issues, where we know we need to create legislation, you know? Are you keeping a running list so that we don't forget?

Chair, staff is taking notes as to what could potentially be an ordinance or what can be a code amendment.

Okay. Okay, good. You're doing that in a list. You're doing this in a list form, right? Not, you know, some big narrative, right, Jarrett?

Eventually I'm sure it'll be in this form.

Okay because these are very important issues that need to be addressed and then it's easy to forget them because before you know we're turning the corner working on budget and all of this would be like a distant memory. Okay thank you. True.

Did planning have something to add?

There is action item 3.02, which is to conduct a feasibility study to identify areas that could support a managed relocation strategy in South Maui. I'm gonna skip the middle part. Develop and implement programmatic environmental documents, policies, and regulations as needed to assist in incentivizing and implementing the managed relocation.

Oh, nice. That is a good one. Member Cook?

Thank you, Chair. I look at this as putting out sort of a white flag for this concept. This is a big, scary, expensive concept that has a lot of emotional and a lot of different things. Your proposal to me is the county acknowledging that there's going to be impacts What the county can address is some of the regulatory, addressing some of the regulatory issues that would occur in someone purchasing a new piece of property in Nalco or in a safe area, decommissioning their existing structure and all of that. And that's their cost, it's their responsibility. But in order to get funding and insurance and all that kind of stuff, if there's a foundation to build on, which is just the very first aspect that the county would be is recognizing there's impacts and things that need to be done, water, other things, sewer, other aspects. And it's not a gift or a gimme. It's just basically opening the door so that people have a way forward and they're not facing all of this and going, oh, but we have to get all these permissions along the way. So I think it's a, and keeping it broad in general and somewhat non-committal is a good idea because we don't want to absorb other people's liability. And if they're irresponsible and not proactive, then there's enough flexibility in this basically to demonstrate like the, This was to help you move when it was appropriate to move. You chose not to move. This isn't like failing you. Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to share that. That's how I look at it is sending the message that we acknowledge that there's challenges and the county is willing to work with you through those challenges. Thank you, Chair.

Member Sinensi?

Hello, Chair, for my opportunity. I mean, I agree that this is specific to South Maui, and we all saw that video yesterday, how 100 cubic yards of sediment coming down and then 100,000 cubic yards of sediment coming down and then winding down to a small little and then down to like a little waterway. So I don't know how it's going to happen again. So I don't know how else what kind of actions we can do. to mitigate that and the water is just going to go the same everywhere it wants to go. So I'm supportive of putting strong language in here specific to, and it's not for all of South Maui, it's just for that north section where a lot of water is coming down. So I think the more, you know, strong language we can put in just so that you know we're showing our community that hey we want to address this we have to i don't know how else we're going to deal with the next corner load it comes down and just brings down more so um i'm i'm so i like the the action plan as stated by ms kankovich and maybe adding it uh as she had recommended chair thanks

Yeah, and since she pointed out on page 42 of our draft plan 2.3.6, maybe amendment to that, something along the lines of to address early adoption of coastal retreat on a property in the Slorexa. support the detachment of the right to public utilities from the property and annexation of the right to those utilities to a property outside the Slarexa as just the broad, because Charlie mentioned wastewater and other items. So if there's an early, early adoption of coastal retreat, we wanna be able to support them in that way especially. Any feedback on that proposal? From the planning department?

I would ask our resource at Alice Lee's desk, but also I think it's fine as a supportive policy for shoreline retreat plans moving forward.

Mr. Jensen, any feedback for us?

I think generally speaking, the protection of those rights is wise. We have to be careful about transferring those rights to a property where the infrastructure isn't up to speed for that. But I think that would get worked out in the details, because each of these would be case by case. But I think in general, this is a wise policy.

Okay, okay. Let's see. I don't see Mr. Peterson on the call. Is he available?

Chair, I don't believe I see Mr. Peterson on the call. We can check in if he's available.

Okay. Chair Lee, I see your hand's still up. Is that from the last time or did you have more? We couldn't hear you.

Last time. Last time. Sorry. Oh, okay. All right.

Mr. Jensen, you're not familiar with if wastewater calls those entitlements or credits detachment and annexation as well?

No, that's just a term I've used in the past in other places. I don't know how wastewater looks at it. Okay.

Okay, just to state it again, it would be to address the early adoption of coastal retreat on a property in the Slarexa. Support either the detachment or the transfer of the right to infrastructure permitting from the property and annexation of the right of infrastructure to property outside of the Solarexa. We may have to put a pin in it until we get in touch with Mr. Peterson. So I can kind of table this discussion maybe till after lunch on this particular one. But I guess once we come up with good verbiage that we run past, I think we've got Mr. Jensen's. input and then the the two main ones from the county are water and wastewater like electric utilities would be a different thing but we could just support that so um we can try and get in touch with someone from dem and then finalize the verbiage for after lunch remember rollins fernandez

Mahalo, Chair. I support tabling this item until we get all our resources. I just wanted to add what Mr. Jensen was saying about the commodification of those rights, that while it's being tabled, that we kind of think about how to put safeguards on that. This isn't... Well...

The policy is still broad where we haven't spoken directly towards the commodification. It's just a broad policy. But if we do pursue code language amendment at that point, it definitely, I think, needs to be added because it would be like an ordinance rather than just a broad policy.

Yeah, I think it should be noted here too. It's like early initiators but not allow for those rights to be sold because that's not the intention. Maybe something like strictly following the intention of encouraging early initiators. Otherwise, it's just... there would be abuse.

Mahalo, Char. Mr. Jensen, when you spoke about guardrails to prevent against the commodification, do you have any examples for us, or if you've seen any?

No, I think we need to get some smart people in a room and workshop that. Okay. Thank you.

All right, all right. So something along the lines of not... Because I think Member Rollins-Fernandez is right in that if somebody had an oceanfront condominium and they're losing that due to nature, that they may try to recoup the entirety of the cost through the commodification of their utility or infrastructure, especially if they're not the entity that would be redeveloping further inland. Like if they... they can't do it and someone else does, they may try to make up the entirety of the financial loss on the back of that infrastructure commitment. And that's not necessarily the point of this. Okay. Oh, Ms. Komkovic.

Keeping the policy here broad and not specifying those issues and then specifying it in code would be more appropriate. I understand the intention, but It's just better to have that broad statement here.

Okay, so something like 2.3.6, but adding in like early initiation, early adoption, and then including about the ability to transfer utilities, but I'll try work on it during lunch and come back with a proposal. So just making a note, we're moving on from 2.3, but we have one kind of cooking in the oven. All right, with that being settled, if members can pull out their attachment for page one, which is the new introduction to 2.4 goal, Mauka to Makai Watershed Management. I did wanna clarify with planning, On this updated attachment, the cross-cutting topics were left off. Are we going with the original cross-cutting topics that are on page 44 of the draft plan and just replacing the why is it important section and the how will setting this goal affect our future section?

Yes, that was the intention.

Oh, okay. And then, Would we need to make a motion to adopt this updated attachment or is that assumed?

You would need to make a motion to adopt the updated attachment. Okay.

Does everyone have their copy of attachment for page one, the updated 2.4 goal Malco to Makai properties?

No, Chair. I'm looking for it now.

It would be on Granite Case number three. Is that correct? Granite Case three. Let me look at my notes.

Sometimes it's easier to find the attachments on We Are South Maui. Oh, okay.

Thank you. And sure, I did just upload the link to the We Are South Maui attachment for.

Oh, great.

Thank you.

Mr. Jensen, I think we're good. Thank you so much for accommodating us. So you can go to We Are South Maui and pull up the updated 2.4 introduction. I like the updated one, but I'm open if anyone has amendments. I think... Department of OEV Resources probably had more of an input on the update because they were not, Department of OEV wasn't formed yet as the CPAC began for South Maui. So this is just some of the edits or inclusions made by Department of OEV Resources.

So Chair, just for my own understanding, so this was not reviewed by the CPAC or the Maui Planning Commission then?

Planning? Chair Paltin had it correct. This was developed in coordination with the Department of OEV resources based on their comments on the draft that came from Maui Planning Commission.

Okay, thank you.

I guess to then in that case, have the RC-PAC resources had a chance to review attachment for page one?

No, we haven't reviewed that yet.

Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Mahalo Chair. I know generally it's easier for us to be able to see the changes when it's Ramziard version because I'm looking at it side by side and it's not like substantial changes. For example, Let's see. Which typically run mauka tumakai like watershed. So in the book, the Maui Planning Commission, the first sentence, traditionally Native Hawaiians divided land using the ahupua system that ran like a watershed system. And then in the amended version, it's traditionally Native Hawaiians manage land using the ahupua'a system, which typically ran and reflected a deeply interconnected relationship between people, resources, and places. So it just, you know, kind of like adds to that without, you know, most of the sentences are the same, but it just kind of, to me enhances the narrative portion of the beginning of this section. I do have a question for Deputy Director Robinson if she's on, and that's the use of Native Hawaiian versus Kanaka Maoli. Aloha, Deputy Director.

Nice to see you all today. Thank you so much for that question, Council Member Rollin-Fernandez and Aloha Chair. Kanaka maoli would be preferable if we're referring to traditional people, indigenous people of this aina. Native Hawaiians sometimes can be confused with a political designation of a, you know, of a person belonging to the Native Hawaiian government. But if, I think in this case, Traditionally, Kanaka Maoli managed lands using the ahpua system or Kanaka OEV would be preferable, especially because it refers to OEV in the next sentence. However, I would defer to the planning department because I forget why that change wasn't made. I don't know if there was something else that limited or prohibited that change. Thank you.

Planning?

That change is fine. I just don't think we discussed it, so it wasn't made.

Always on mute. Okay. I was talking to myself. Mahalo Planning Department. Mahalo Deputy Director Robinson for your mana'o on that. I do see within each ahupua'a, OEV cultivated and cared for the lands where they lived. So should it be consistent with OEV there as well? Traditionally, OEV managed land using the ahupua'a system? Okay. So if we can make that change.

Non-substantive. Change it to OEV instead of Kanaka OEV.

I think the preference would be Kanaka OEV.

And then keep that consistent with the next sentence to say within each ahupua'a Kanaka OEV or can it just be OEV in the next sentence?

In the following sentences, it's okay for it to be OEV.

Okay.

And then toward the bottom of that paragraph, it has, the holistic system allowed Native Hawaiians to thrive. Should that be Kanaka OEV?

I would prefer in that space for it to be OEV. The Kanaka portion refers to the people, but in that sentence, it's seeming like the entire environment of native, you know, the ecology, the native ecology is thriving. So I think in that space as well, it's preferable to just have OEV. Mahalo.

Okay, so that one would be, and then in the last sentence, how will setting this goal affect the future? Toward the bottom, it says, place-based approach grounded in Native Hawaiian knowledge and practices.

I would be comfortable with what the council is comfortable with.

Just OEB in that space?

I think I would be comfortable with Native Hawaiian there only because now we're moving into the future and referencing governance and things like that.

May concrete babies approach grounded in Native Hawaiian knowledge and practices.

Yeah, I don't have a preference for that space. If you folks would like to put OEV, that would be allowable. If you would like to leave it Native Hawaiian, that would be okay as well.

And then I had a question on the first Kanaka OEV when it's traditionally Kanaka OEV. Did you want Kahakau over the

Yes, mahalo, yes.

And that would be the first a?

The first a, so ke a ko, nu a, ke a, ka naka.

No eses.

No eses, thank you, and thank you for mentioning that yesterday. In Olela Hawaii, we don't have leis, we have lei, and we don't have halaus, we have halau. So mahalo nui, thank you so much.

Okay. Member Cook, followed by Member Lee.

Thank you, Chair. This is going to be implemented, okay, for flood management that incorporates Upcountry District and South Maui District and the Swahili. It's going to be literally hundreds of millions of dollars to do flood management and the um the last sentence says it is not a general or abstract idea it's a concrete place-based approach grounded in native hawaiian knowledge and practices this plan recognizes that coordination of country groups and developments will be vital to achieving the goal um I just kind of want to put it on the table in discussion, the difference when people are talking about green infrastructure and basically modern traditional civil engineering and environmentally green soft. I think that we need to kind of just discuss and be aware of what needs to be done quantitatively. I just, I've put it out there a number of times. I look at this as an opportunity for water management, soil management, invasive species management, invasive species management, resiliency, really like all wrapped in resiliency. So, but in order to do it, it needs to be We have to design it, we have to build it, we have to fund it. And if we can come together with old and new methodologies and do it in a sensitive way, but do it realistically. Like I said the other day, we have like over 80 billion gallons of water come down the mountain in like a 24-hour period. that's not going to get absorbed by anything. We need to capture and separate the water and sort of mitigate the damage. Most of the times they, you know, oh God, we don't have that kind of water. We have heavy rains that we could be, that can be beneficial. And when we do have heavy rains, it needs to be addressed so that it can not wash out homes and whatnot. So I just wanted to put that out there that I don't know. When I read this, it would be very difficult for someone to say, okay, well, we're going to do a civil engineering plan and divide and implement it. And I want to make sure that we do this in such a way that we are reach out to whoever public works or, you know, in our, in our CS that what we put in the community plan is our 10 and desire. We want it to be followed, but we don't want to trip ourselves up inadvertently. with somebody saying, oh, no, you can't do that. You can't. So that's just my comment. I don't have a problem with it. I just have a concern. Thank you.

Thank you, Member Cook. Noted. Chair Lee, followed by Member Uhu Hodges.

Okay, was there a reason why cross cutting topics were left out? Because I think this is the idea is to take into consideration all these other important issues that need to be dealt with besides trying to do things the traditional way.

Cross-cutting topics was not included in attachment four because it remains as it is in the book. The attachment four is just an updated version to the why is it important and how will setting this goal affect our future. Cross-cutting topics wasn't included because it's going to remain as it is on page 44.

of the book okay that's good to know because um just leaving it with the improvements you know gives one the impression that we're going to go back to the old days as if nothing has changed you know unfortunately a lot has changed and we have to take into consideration all these other issues so if remember cook looked at that the original Page 44, you may want to add one or two items, but other than that, I think everything else is fine.

Thank you. If Member Cook wanted to add one or two items to the cross-cutting topics, you mean?

Yes. I don't think he was looking at that.

Page 44 at the bottom has cross-cutting topics. Member Uhuhaji?

Thank you, Chair. And this is Super Manini, and I'm not suggesting any changes right now. But we do say holistic four times in a very short three-paragraph page. That's the littlest things, but it does get my goat. Twice in the last paragraph, once in the second, and once in the first. And after a while, I stop reading and comprehending, and I just start counting redundant words. So if anybody like me in the future, they're going to have to read this five times because they just counted holistic four. Again, not suggesting any change, but there are synonyms we could use to, you know, get the same point across without saying holistic four times. That's all. Thank you.

Is planning getting a thesis for Christmas? Okay, we'll leave it to somebody who has an online PCRS to make some suggestions. Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. Just linking what I was saying is when we're soon going to have the discussion about the 100-foot buffer, the proposed previously 200-foot buffer, the revitalization of the wetlands. These are all very sound things that we need to discuss. I think not addressing the Malka to Makai aspect, nothing works. But the implementation of the things from Malka to Makai, what I'm getting at is if somebody doesn't want to go 100-foot buffer, they're proposing something else like that, it's like what's happening up above that's going to mitigate that? Linking this all together, because right now, South Maui, we're focusing on what we have and what we can control, which It's just from our 600 foot boundary down. So anyway, I'm looking forward to discussing the wetlands too. It's like, what does that entail like revitalizing? And the other aspect is buffers to mitigate pollutants. So I've been looking forward to this conversation because I think that there's a lot of things we can accomplish. Thank you.

Sure, and I don't see wetlands or wetland revitalization as a cross-cutting topic. Would there be opposition from the planning department to have that as a cross-cutting topic or is that not meet the standard?

The cross-cutting topics are from the 90s plans, how the topics were separated. It's just showing all the different topics that would be covered. That would be covered under environmental, yeah, environment, possibly cultural resources.

Okay. All right. Checking in with our CPAC resources, any input on attachment for page one verbiage?

Well, I do like the input from Deputy Director Robinson on Native Hawaiian and it can be political to use that terminology. So I think those her suggestions are good and I like them and overall I do like, I have to agree with, Council member Uhu Hodgins, maybe holistic can be used.

I just found comprehensive.

Yeah, another synonym for that. But anyway, yeah, I'm fine with the attachment, with those suggested changes that I've heard.

We do have comprehensive, integrated, all-encompassing, overarching to choose from. I see Member Rollins-Fernandez has her hand up.

Mahalo, Chair. This is to Member Cook's question or comment about wetlands and then cross-cutting topics. I know we have other services and facilities which imply the built environment, but maybe something that could be added or clarified because it just has environment, but ecosystem services because that's what wetlands are. Oh, where'd you go? I don't see your video, Chair. Oh, there you are. Okay.

Okay. Member Cook?

I look at the wetlands also as infrastructure. It's a vital part integrated into the community. So I think that it's much more than an environment, just that abstract or separate. I think it really is something to be measured, implemented, and acknowledged. So that's where I would put it in the crossover. It's not just environmental and it's infrastructure. It's vital to incorporating that into how we're addressing all this. Thank you.

Okay. We could leave the first holistic on or replace it with overarching and leave the second one as holistic. And then the third holistic could potentially be integrated or the fourth one could be integrated or overarching. So if we, yes, Charlie. Couldn't the staff do that? Oh, okay. Yeah, we'll do non-substantive synonyms for redundant. We'll allow you guys to do that. So then with that being said, I'll entertain a motion to approve strike the current, why is it important, and how will setting this goal affect our future on page 44 with attachment for page one, except that the first native Hawaiians would say ka naka maoli with a kaha ko over the first ah, And then in the last sentence of the first paragraph, replacing Native Hawaiians with OEV, similar to it in the second sentence. So moved. Moved by Member Lee. Seconded by Member Cook.

Oh, did you hear it? Oh, of course, yeah. It sounds like the window.

We got it. And then any discussion or would members have a preference on the third Native Hawaiian in the how will setting this goal affect our future? Is that okay to leave as Native Hawaiian? Okay, so that's the motion made by Charlie. No discussion, Charlie?

No discussion.

Okay, and seconded by Member Cook. All in favor?

Sorry, one clarification. Are we using Kanaka OEV or just OEV?

Only the first one would say Kanaka OEV with a kahako over the ah, first ah, eh? And then the rest would say OEV. The second sentence has OEV and then the last sentence replace Native Hawaiians with OEV. Okay, and then non-substantive changes to the redundant use of holistic at the discretion of the word prettier. All those in favor say aye.

Aye. Chair, I see seven ayes, zero noes to excuse members Sugimura and Patonga. Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay. Mr. Ramirez, if you want to flash up for us the evolution of 2.4.1. And planning, can you confirm that the changes that we see in column two were changes made by the CPAC to your draft?

Yes.

Okay. So it looks like the adopted CPAC or the CPAC changes were adopted in the Maui Planning Commission draft. I have no recommended changes. You can take down the screen share. Do any other members have objections to moving on? No objection. Okay. Can you flash up for us 2.4.2 Attachment 3A, page 61? So the recommended changes looks like it may have been updated with input from OEV resources. I do like the changes from the CPAC draft. to prioritize traditional Hawaiian cultural practices, nature-based solutions, low-impact design, and green infrastructure strategies rather than gray infrastructure to manage flooding and prevent surface water pollutants from flowing into streams and reaching the ocean. That being said, would planning or somebody, Let us know what gray infrastructure exactly is.

We're looking for the definition in the back, but gray infrastructure would generally be like the drainage you see that is gray pipes underneath. Okay, there we go. Traditional stormwater infrastructure in the built environment such as gutters, drains, pipes, and retention basins. As compared to green infrastructure, which is drainage systems that slow down or control stormwater runoff to be used for non-potable use or provide additional environmental benefits like groundwater recharge, evaporation, reduce pollution. Okay. Examples of green infrastructure include permeable pavement, bioswales, rain gardens, and other rainwater catchment systems.

Thank you. Member Cook?

Thank you, Chair. I don't have the verbiage, but I think that the, and there again, prioritize is not dictating, but I just want to remind people, looking at the roads, that amount of mud does, Vernon's aerial photos and acknowledging that a lot of them the wetlands are now impervious and a lot of this yeah a lot of it so we are where we are and mitigating a lot of the water at mauka is the way that really is going to make a big difference enabling our existing wetlands to really function i mean i i mean i think getting rid of the kiawe trees and having instead of these vacant lots basically be honored cultivated wetlands um not building any more wetlands i don't think the county is approving any more permits for um in areas there's you know there's ways you can it's very expensive very delayed and there's just and we've recently purchased are in the process of purchasing i'm pretty sure the sabio properties that we've been striving to for years so we are we're moving forward in acknowledgement of that but i just want to i don't disagree with the gray intent with the green intent but i i just really hesitate to have the buy-in to the perception that that's going to manage the quantity of the water that we're dealing with. And so I'm just on record, I'm hoping to work together because civil engineering and pipes and drainage and gutters, if you're gonna have a road, you're gonna have gutters. They did do it on the new highway coming into town, where if you look on the sides, there is... They actually have rain gardens, cuts on the curbs and drains and grass. So it isn't just going to storm drain, it goes under there and then the overflow goes from sand drain. We can do porous pavement for sidewalks. We can do porous pavement for parking lots. There's a lot of things that we can do that are blending the green and the gray. So just thanks for letting me, I just want to kind of put my little footsteps along this path and we're doing it together. I'm not, I don't want to argue over it, but I'm being cautionary to keep in perspective the magnitude of what we're addressing. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And to the point of Mr. Kalanikawa's photographs and his, I guess, comments through the presentation, it seemed that the majority of the issue affecting Kihei wasn't simply the water it was the sediment and mud because that is what fills up the gulches to make it like hard to pass through and debris the the bridge like it was meant for water to go under the bridge or potentially over the bridge but it's the amount of mud sediment and debris that um exacerbates the issue and a lot of that we know um is become so much worse because we haven't been able to effectively manage the feral animals, in particular the axis deer, which would denude the landscape and then allow for like the mud and stuff to flow down. So like I think a previous, person mentioned, it's complex in that it's not simply the water, it's not simply the debris, it's not simply the mud, it's like the intersection of all of this and not being able to say force our way onto private property to address access steer or the denuding of the landscape, which is in a different community plan area. I don't know that we can make policies for the South Maui community plan that would affect the upcountry area, which is where the problem sort of originates from. But, Charity?

Yeah. Would people consider adding at the end to the extent practicable, because a lot of these things really, in reality, are going to be engineer based. And the engineers will provide the solutions. It's not the goodwill or, you know, what used to be 100 years ago. It is what's dealing with the major, major challenges, physical, infrastructural challenges that we have today. So The idea is understood here, but to the extent practicable, I think it makes it more realistic. I don't know. What do you think, everybody? No, I don't support that.

Okay, I'll take Member Rollins-Fernandez and then Mr. Weltman wanting to make a comment and then Mr. Cook and then Mr. Jackson. Okay, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Well, Chair, this policy starts with prioritize. That's very soft. It's not a hard requirement. So I don't think if it was like required, then I would support like to the extent practicable. But it just says prioritize. And, you know, to your point, Chair, this is what happens when aina is not managed holistically. And, you know, it's privatized in this, in the way that it is now. And it's like, no one's kuleana and therefore everyone gets impacted. I think that, you know, the way it's written is okay. I think for those that did come and, you know, unfortunately, member Lee and member Cook didn't make it to Molokai, got to see what slowing the water looks like, mauka. because it catches all that sediment. The faster the water runs, like how Mr Kalani Ka was talking about, when it's channelized and the channel becomes narrower and the land isn't managed properly, mauka, then all that loose soil just gets run off with the water. And that's what has created the mud floods, which we've never experienced to this extent before. So I support the policy as it is. I think I wanted to ask Deputy Director Robinson a question. I know that this includes Department of OUV Resources input. And so prioritize traditional Hawaiian cultural practices. Traditional Hawaiian cultural practices are nature-based solutions. And so I don't see Deputy Director's video popping on, so perhaps I can ask Mr. Weltman. And maybe... Maybe the nature-based solutions are broader, like so that it would be nature-based that are not traditional Hawaiian cultural practices. Is that what Mr. Weltman, CPAC folks had intended or thought? Mr. Weltman?

I think that language comes from the planning department, but of course we supported it wholeheartedly. I just wanted to give a little background just so people understand why why people in South Maui feel so strongly about green and nature-based versus gray infrastructure. This was up, could be maybe eight years ago, something like that, I forget exactly, but when the South Maui Drainage Plan came out, because the first big attempt to, what are we gonna do about all this water and mud coming down the mountains? And it provided for large concrete culverts, which you just dump it right out in the ocean, And people in Maui were really upset because we care about our coral reefs and we see our coral reefs dying and their coral reefs are, I think, the best remaining ones in all of Maui at this point. And we really don't want to lose those. And so, but at that time, and we had big public meetings and just a lot of protests and people said, we need something other than this gray approach in the South Maui drainage plan. But the response we got at that time was, well, our job is to get the water down into the ocean as fast as possible. to avoid the flooding of the streets and to avoid the flooding of the properties. Our responsibility is not to protect the ocean. So that's where this is coming from. That's why people feel so strongly about nature-based and green-based versus gray. Thank you.

Mahalo, Mr. Weltman. And I think the people of Oluwalu may dispute that claim, but it's not a competition. I'm just kidding. I would love all of our reefs to look gorgeous and healthy and thriving. So I fully support what you're saying, Mr. Weltman. And in the Molokai Community Plan, what our community felt very strongly about, which in English, I guess, would translate to holistic, is the management of, you know, looking at management from the seven realms or eight realms of decision-making. So all the way up from , all the way to . And so I think part of, it's not like, oh, green or gray, it's about holistic. It's about looking at it in its entirety. And that's really the underlying problem of like all of these problems. and I see Deputy Director Robinson turn on her video. So did you hear my earlier question?

Could you repeat it again real quick? I think I got the gist of it, but.

Oh, okay, so I learned from Mr. Weltman that nature-based solutions came from the planning department's draft and not CPAC. But I'm guessing you have discussions with the planning department. I can invite the planning department to also provide their amount on this. But in leaving in nature-based solutions, is that implying that those solutions are non-traditional Hawaiian cultural practices?

yeah a mahalo council member thank you chair i um you know i i'm not sure what nature-based solutions are i can only speak to traditional hawaiian perspectives to care and management of waters and lands um i don't disagree with nature-based solutions that sounds wonderful but you know when i look at it from an oev lens it it forces me to consider the landscape as a interconnected whole rather than different parcels separate from each other. And we all know, like Mr. Kalanicka said, the water is going to go where the water is going to go. So the water follows the watershed, the shorelines will shift, the wetlands, they hold and release water. So all the environmental impacts happen across property boundaries. And we know that as Kanaka. As far as that terminology, as far as nature-based versus traditional native Hawaiian-based, I don't know that they're even different. Maybe they're just different facets of the same concept, but I do only understand that our Kanaka OEV and our kupuna understood how to live in the space. I know we have to deal with what is there now, And we're always going to advocate for the wetland. We're always going to advocate for opening the springs and keeping the aina clear so the aina can take care of what it needs to take care of. The wetlands can take care. That's all kuleana. And that's kuleana that you folks have as well. Our aina also has kuleana. Even if there's nothing apparent or obvious on the aina as kuleana, all aina has kuleana, the seas have kuleana, the kahawai, the rivers have kuleana. So, yeah, I cannot comment on nature-based solutions specifically, because I am not aware, but I do, I am always gonna advocate for traditional Hawaiian management practices and sustainability and resiliency practices.

Did you want to also hear from planning?

Yes, Mahalo Chair.

To clarify, it might just be best to prioritize traditional Hawaiian cultural practices and other nature-based solutions.

Okay. Is that non-substantive or is that, will I need to make a motion later?

And then do we need the word and because it would be prioritized traditional Hawaiian cultural practices, other nature-based solutions, low-impact design and green infrastructure strategies. Okay.

So we can share just real quick. So and one of the distinctions of traditional Hawaiian cultural practices and like nature based solutions is that Hawaiian cultural practices generally have like. many benefits, right? So the loʻi would, you know, slow the water. It would provide food via kalo, et cetera. It would provide food for fish. It would provide recharge for the aquifer. And then, you know, like we, after, you know, the fire, we heard folks ask for like planting cactuses because cactuses are fire resistant. And So it just has that one benefit of resisting fire, but it's not... That's it.

Multi-faceted. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Mahalo. Okay, Mr. Weltman.

Just to add to, I think, what Council Member Rollins-Van der Saad and other people have said too, I was volunteering with Kīpuka Oluwalu just to a couple of weeks ago and rebuilding their Lo'ikalo up there. And they said that one of the things that they did is they have, Coral Reef Alliance comes and measures the water quality every now and then. What they found is that the Lo'ikalo measurably improved the water quality going down to the ocean. So it does all work together. They call it nature-based, they call it traditional Hawaiian, but that's the way to go.

Let's call it holistic. Okay, Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. I completely agree with Mr. Weltman and the community that the initial proposed concrete similar to EL, similar to EL's stream and some of the other major flood mitigation projects is not appropriate or desirable. that particular project was that, my understanding is that study when they did it, it was with the federal funds for, so it was rather narrow for that specific thing. What I'm proposing and what is more, I'll say popular all across the board, engineers and everybody is because it's water resource management. The floodwaters the way they are now, the sediment and all of the water, not being accepted when it's given because it is a blessing and kept for water, for recharge, for irrigation, keeping the sediment up. So all of the things that aren't green that may have some great attributes to utilize, preserve and utilize the resources, minimize the impact to the this developed community. So I'm not, I just want to go on, I'm completely in agreement that that is like a big stop sign. Nope, that's not the answer. And it is a hybrid coming together. So I just want to, I've said it, I don't want to wordsmith, I think it is what it is, but I do want to be communicate and come in as much agreement as we can through this process, because it's an important plan for my community.

Thank you, Member Cook. Charlie?

I would like to hear from Public Works, please.

Is Director Molina on the line?

Chair, I don't see him online. I apologize.

Okay. Okay, because we keep asking people for comments, who have a vision of something, who have a connection to the past, but are not engineers, are not the actual people who'll be in the field to resolve all of these very complicated mechanical problems. So it's sad that we don't get the opportunity to hear from Public Works because they're the ones in charge. So again, I would ask that you guys consider the idea of adding to the end of this paragraph to the extent practicable. Thank you.

Thank you. To the Planning Department, did Public Works evaluate Policy 2.4.2 at all?

Thank you chair. So Public Works has participated in the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission process and their basic message is that they need a variety of options and so prioritizing green infrastructure Is certainly a good policy But yeah, they need different options depending on situations. So they would be supportive of this. I think

when the word prioritize is used, it implies to the extent practicable because if it's not to the extent practicable, it would say exclusively utilize traditional Hawaiian culture. So it's like try these out first. They're not working. Try another thing. So I feel like your words to the extent practicable is implied with it because it's not required or exclusive. And so I'll entertain a motion to...

Chair. It would be helpful to have Public Works be present throughout the meeting because it's hard to... Thank you, Jackie, Director of Planning. But I would like to hear directly from Jordan to hear just what you said, to verify what you said, that prioritize could mean or does essentially mean to the extent practicable.

Okay, thank you. I did sign the director request, but I, um, it's an impeachable offense for a council member to tell them to do what we asked them to.

I said, ask, ask.

Okay. Yeah, I, I did ask with the director's request that I signed, um,

Because I don't see that we're getting a full picture. We keep going back to the same people, the same resource people, and not getting the other side of the story. I like two sides. Thank you.

Yeah, all I can do is ask. And our staff has texted him, but he is a busy guy. Okay, so I'll entertain a motion to strike the language in page 45 of the draft plan policy 2.4.2 and replace that language with prioritize traditional Hawaiian cultural practices other nature based solutions, low impact design and green infrastructure strategies rather than gray infrastructure to manage flooding and prevent surface water pollutants from flowing into streams and reaching the ocean. Move by Member Cook, second by Member Rollins-Fernandez. Any further discussion? Roll call. Roll call. Do you have discussion, Member Rollins-Fernandez?

I do. Mahalo, Chair. In the drafting guidelines column, it does have brackets over the quotes. Did you include the quotes over nature-based solutions? And to the recommended changes, the quotes continued, super minor, I know, but since we're here, we may as well do it right.

Utilizing the words in the recommended changes for attachment 3A, page 61, but adding the word other prior to nature-based. Is that clear enough? We want it exactly like the recommended changes with all the quotes and everything.

Yeah, well, the drafting guidelines, it has the brackets over the quotes. So that tells me that the guidelines wants to delete it. And then when it gets to the recommended, it's there again.

That's a typo.

Which is a typo? The brackets or the quotes?

Or I mean, no, the quotes. You don't need quotes because Nature-Based Solutions has more recognized than it was.

Okay, and then the gray, you want quotes or none in quotes?

It also doesn't need quotes.

All right. Okay, so as read and not as printed in the recommended changes. Any further discussion? Seeing none, can we get a roll call, staff?

Chair, proceeding with roll call vote. Give me one moment. Council Member Sugimura. Excuse. Council Member Sinensi. Aye. Council Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Aye.

Council Chair Lee.

No.

Council Member Johnson. Yes. Council Member Cook. Aye. Council Member Patongan. Excused. Committee Vice Chair Uhu Hodgins.

Aye.

Committee Chair Paltin.

Aye.

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

Thank you. I have no recommended changes for 2.4.3. It remained as the planning department proposed through every iteration that it has gone through, but I'm willing to entertain a motion from the floor if members would like to make one. Seeing none, moving on to policy 2.4.4. Personally, I do like the drafting guidelines. which I believe is the version that made it into the draft book. There were some changes at the planning commission level and some changes at the drafting level, but I think they served to enhance the original proposal from planning. It's like I can feel Chair Thayer's touch on this draft plan. Too bad we can't keep her on there forever, but I don't know that her family would like that. So that being said, I have no recommendations for change for 2.4.4. I'm willing to... No, okay. We do at this point have Deputy Director Peterson on the call. He may not be able to stay. Is there any objection to going back to 2.3.6 real briefly and see if he has any input on that policy that we had discussed earlier this morning since we do have him at this time? Okay. Aloha Deputy Peterson. Thank you so much for joining us. We were discussing policy 2.3.6 somewhat on page 42 of the draft plan. We wanted to kind of craft a real broad policy and Mr. Jensen from the Water Department was saying, you know, we were talking about supporting early adoption of coastal retreat through incentives such as being able to detach water rights from one property and annex them to a property that's outside of the Slorexa. If someone chose to use an adaptive pathway to coastal retreat early on before like letting their entire building collapse and pieces of, structure are floating around in the ocean. He mentioned that taking the utilities from one property and attaching it to another property would be called like the detachment of water from one parcel and the annexation of that water rights to another parcel. Is there something similar in wastewater? capacity or something, like say a property is in serious threat of falling into the ocean, and maybe the landowner owns other property outside of the Slerexa, or they're looking to purchase other property out of the Slerexa, or they have somebody that's willing to develop and maybe they want to buy a unit there in the future. Is there any mechanism that wastewater has that would allow the right to that wastewater capacity to transfer from one parcel to another? And if so, what is it called?

Thank you, Chair. That's a good question on what it's called. I'm not prepared to answer that. But I do know we would have to take each individual property and evaluate it separately.

There might not be infrastructure or something like that.

Yeah, the infrastructure is the big problem. Our transmission lines would be the biggest thing we need to look at. The capacity at the plant may have the capacity, but getting it there is normally the choke point, and we would have to take each project and evaluate it separately.

So it may not be on a case-by-case basis even possible because the new property may not have any infrastructure to tie into?

Yeah, or it would require upgrading infrastructure, upsizing lines, things of that nature to accommodate a different location.

What about the thoughts of wastewater treatment facility capacity reservation? If they were committed to doing those infrastructure upgrades, would you be able to hold like a phasing out shoreline properties capacity for five years or 10 years?

I would say I would have to confirm that with the division. I don't think we could make that commitment now. And, you know, honestly, I think it would be difficult to reserve that capacity until it, you know, actually comes into building permit.

We may try to work on legislation in the future that would get more specific, but just for this phase in the South Maui Community Plan, we were trying to look for a broad policy to help incentivize earlier coastal retreats. I don't know if anyone is available during lunch, but I'll try to... work on some language either during lunch or maybe over the next couple days or so and try to be sure to run it by you if it works. But I guess I won't necessarily be ready right after lunch with that language, maybe more towards the end of section two than in that case. if you are able to, you know, just try and talk it through with anyone in wastewater, if they have any suggestions, either for the end of Section 2 or into the future, if there's legislation to try and incentivize an adaptation pathway for a coastal retreat.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. If we could defer this maybe to... uh a day in the future that would be fantastic um both uh division chief uh eric and scott are are traveling today and unavailable so i probably won't be able to get you an answer until early next week okay all right thank you so much um i don't know that we have much more else in mauka tumakai systems for uh

environmental management, but feel free to stay listening if you'd like to.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, members, for that brief departure of where we were. Let's see.

Chair, I believe the committee is now on 2.4.5.

Oh, thank you so much. You read my mind. Okay, Mr. Ramirez, do you mind flashing up 2.4.5? It looks like there were changes made at every step of the way. And my preference was for the recommended changes, but this one may take us a bit. This one, I think, you know, the Gulch is... it was mentioned that they were pretty controversial. And I'm not sure, too, if we wanna take up 2.45 and 2.46 together, or not necessarily together, but look at the two of them as we vote, because they both, 2.45 and 2.46, are about gulches. We did have one testifier asking if they could be combined and simplified, but as we saw also from the presentation, the gulches are a huge issue because this is kind of what it turns into. And during our site visit, obviously we weren't able to see it like this. We went to the Kulaniha Koi Gulch access by Kenoleo Apartments. And so it wasn't running, it wasn't dangerous for us per se, but what we did see, which was before Lowell, but after Lala, um just rocks in the gulch pretty high up all the way from like one side of the fences of houses to the other side to the fences of houses and it looked pretty precarious like if there had been a large volume of rushing water coming down, I would not wanna be the house right next to that. The fences look like they held, but I'm not sure. I do see Ms. Komkowicz's hand up if you wanted to add any context to this policies for us.

One thing I would like to add is reviewing 2.4.7 as well as part of your review of these two policies.

Okay, so take up 2.4.5, .4.6 and .4.7 together because they're kind of related.

They are related and one difference you'll see is that drainage ways were added because South Maui, has wide drainage ways as opposed, there are gulches, but there are also drainage ways that are part of the issue. As you could see by Vernon's presentation, the managing water flows and the encroachment of development onto waterways and wetlands has been a problem in South Maui's development. And we heard that the South Maui CPAC and community would like to avoid those same mistakes being made in the future. And that is the reason for the way these policies are crafted.

Thank you. And staff, if you can see if we can get Director Molina on the call for this discussion in particular, that would, I think, help because Public Works is in charge of drainage to some extent. Chair Lee.

I was going to ask the same thing, but if you're having trouble, yeah, if you're having trouble finding him at the moment, maybe we could defer this till after lunch when he may be available.

Sure, sure. I don't mind deferring it because this is like kind of the meat and potatoes of this section and a big, probably the largest issue facing South Maui. So I definitely don't want to rush through it and I definitely would like to have the key resources that are in charge of managing it. have we got any response from okay all right so it seems that he's not available right now but um if anyone wants to look at this during lunch just know that 4.6 4.7 and 4.8 are related and that we're gonna be taking them up as a block when ever we are able to get key person from Public Works also on the call. 5, 6 and 7 though. Oh I'm sorry 5, 6 and 7. Thank you. Okay so I'll make a note that these three are to be taken up together. And we can skip ahead to 2.4.8, which is on page 45 still, but it's attachment 3A, page 66. Oh, thank you, Mr. Ramirez. I guess I just had one question. probably for planning. Is there a document or a source when it says by planting appropriate native plants, like say somebody just moved in from Alabama, and they have no idea what the appropriate native plants would be, is there a source that we could point them to or how would Don Q public know what the appropriate native plant is?

There are a couple of resources. One is the gonativeplants.org. It's a special website that is developed to identify plants that are appropriate for the microclimates of Hawaii. There is also, and I don't have the, there is one from Sea Grant that is specific for the coastal areas as well.

And are those resources made note of in any of the appendices or anything?

We could add those. There is also the Maui County Planting Plan that shows the areas and where it's appropriate to plant plants. It notes native plants, but does not necessarily just prioritize native plants.

Okay, yeah, maybe we can look to where we might add this in the appendices, because I mean, I guess, like you said, this would be triggered by an SMA permit or like a change in zoning, and at that point, you would potentially have like a landscape planting plan, and then you could determine if they have the appropriate native plants by cross-referencing those resources, but yeah. It's just nice to have where they can go to do the right thing without extra work. Oh, Mr. Weltman?

Let's make a pitch for the Department of Water's guide, too, because it is really good. It shows by... by district, by zone based on how much water you have and also there's information about the elevations that each supports. Very good guide.

What is that resource called and where can it be found?

It is online. Maui County's Landscape and Gardening Handbook.

There's actually a different one produced by the Department of Water a long time ago, maybe 10 years ago. I'll look it up.

Okay, yeah, when we get to the appendices, maybe mention that and we can have all those sources in one place to assist the South Maui community. Other than that, I have no issue with the policy as it appears in the draft plan. So unless there is any objection, we can move on. Okay, 2.4.9 is another one that had revisions. I didn't think it took away too much. I do love changing the word shall to must. Um... you said 2.4.9 it just changes the impacts to damages that one yeah to support watershed management yeah at the npc they changed shall to must and then at the drafting guidelines it changes impacts to damages i i think each revision only builds on the original um no changes no changes to the next one either okay So any objection to moving on from 2.49 and 2.410? All right. Going on to 2.4.11. Mr. Ramirez, if you can flash up page 68 for us. Thank you. Okay, in this one, the original A, which was appropriately regulating and limiting development in the shoreline setback area, was removed at the Planning Commission process, and then it was kind of re-lettered A, B, and C. Can we hear from the Planning Department or Corp Council about the removal of the original letter A?

That was at the recommendation of Corporation Council and I will wait for Hopper to, I mean Corporation Council to look at it.

And then just clarifying, was it the letter A, the original letter A section, was that removed during the CPAC as well?

that was removed during CPAC at the request, at the recommendation of Corporation Council.

Oh, okay, so then there wasn't really a change from the CPAC to the MPC version?

Chair, I think this would be along the lines of something that you're literally mentioning, regulating and limiting development in the shoreline setback area. There's an HRS that...

Boy, that's not our authority.

Yeah, I mean, we discussed this yesterday, but yeah, I think that's why we looked at deleting that particular letter.

Okay, that being said, I have no recommendations. Any objection moving on to 2.4.12? This one, there were some changes made at the Maui Planning Commission level. I don't think that they were necessarily bad and I feel as though they, for the most part, retained the gist. Any objection to moving on? See none. Oh, Keanu. Oh, sorry. Remember our names.

We're not. Well, okay. So I see that. Oh, where'd it go? Oh, prioritize native and canoe plants. Oh, the ram's ear kind of got thrown off in CPAC and MPC version. So the native and endemic was removed. And then instead it says canoe plants. So native and canoe plants.

All right.

And canoe. I answered my own question. Okay, thanks. Thanks for letting me talk it out, everyone.

We just love watching how your mind works.

Or doesn't.

Same to you, Cherilee.

Okay, then. Moving on to 2.4.12, I am okay with the... Recommended language. So I will, I mean, unless there's any further discussion, I will entertain a motion to strike the language on page 46 for 2.4.13 and replace it with the recommended changes on attachment 3A, page 69, bottom right corner. Excuse me, Chair. Oh, yes. Ms. Komkowicz.

Can you just move the bracket over in 2.4.13 to encompass MTCN process? Sorry, sorry. I'll read it out.

I'll entertain a motion to strike the language in 2.4.13, page 46, and to replace it with require affordable and workforce housing to be outside the special flood hazard areas, which includes V, VE, A, AO, AH, and AE. Moved by Member Rollins-Fernandez, seconded by Member Sinensi. Any further discussion? Everyone in support, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, six aye, oh, I'm sorry, wait, I need to count. I'm seeing six ayes, zero noes, three excuse. Members Uhu Hodgins, Betongan, and Sugimura, motion passes.

Okay. 2.4.14 had no changes after the CPAC's initial changes. And so I won't be recommending any changes. Unless anyone from the floor has any. Okay, moving on to Mr. Ramirez, can you flash up page 71 of attachment 3A for us? I believe on this one, the recommended change is to split the policy into two. And the part that is bracketed out in the recommended changes is dropped down to a different policy. And I think the word require is put back to encourage, which we can discuss when we get to that next policy probably. But... The first part of it is fairly consistent. I think where appropriate may have been taken out and the ordering of low impact and green infrastructure and permaculture was just rearranged. Any comments on the splitting of the policy into two separate policies? Are members all right with that? And then the wording in the first policy, what the change from the cpac to the npc was to just add green infrastructure in it and um so and take out where appropriate so it would read um strike to the current 2.4.15 on page 46 and the motion would amend it to say require the implementation of low-impact development, green infrastructure, or permaculture design practices in developments in South Maui to reduce stormwater runoff and protect water quality. Moved by Member Sinensi. Seconded by Member Rollins-Fernandez. Any discussion?

Chair, I do see Ms. Konkiewicz, and if we could hear from a seat back, Chair.

sure um i'm not sure if she lowered her hand from the last time she raised it but um any comments miss komkovic no that was from last time oh okay feel free to lower it if you'd like and mr weltman any comments on the first part of the split no not on the first part okay all right um

I have a question for planning. Okay. Definitions and I guess I'm familiar with the terms green infrastructure, permaculture design, practices and development. Is it common that landscape architects and the various professionals that are now submitting drawings and plans are familiar and practicing this? That's my question for planning. Is there anyone for reviewing?

Planning? There are state and federal resources on low impact design, and that includes green infrastructure.

Is that something that planning addresses or public work addresses? When someone's going in to want to build something, I'm just wondering. I don't have a problem with it.

Planning does share these resources. It's available on maps as well.

Okay, thank you.

And so as a reminder, these community plan policies are triggered if there's an SMA permit, if there's a change in zoning, what were the other ones? Subdivision. Subdivision, SMA.

And a special use permit.

And a special use permit. So those are when the department would look through the South Mountain Community Plan to see if that's triggered. Member Cook.

Thank you. Thank you for that clarification of when the planning department comes into play. And so it's my question to the planning department. Does this impact on how you currently do reviews Do people understand it? Does this make much difference?

If this is implemented, will it change how the planning department does their reviews? That's your question, Member Cook?

Correct.

Okay. Go ahead, planning.

More recently, we have really started going thoroughly through the policies when we do plan reviews. And as part of that, we would include the resources to send to the project proponents.

Thank you. Mr. Weltman. The Mackenna Resort is actually using permaculture and that's very exciting. It's the first major project in South Maui to do that, so that's kind of a feasibility proof.

Was that Mackenna Resort you said?

Yes.

Okay. Good on them. Any further discussion? Everyone ready for the vote? All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members, Uhu, Hodgins, Sugimura, and Betonga, motion passes.

Thank you. And then this one would be adding a new policy and it would be will let the numbering be considered a non-substantive change. So the second part of that original policy, which originally had said require management of flows that are greater than the five-year storm event Remove pollutants through low-impact design or permaculture design to retain, filter, and sink stormwater as feasible on site. The recommended change is encourage management of flows that are greater than the five-year storm event. and remove pollutants through low-impact or permaculture design to retain, filter and absorb stormwater as feasible on-site. So the main difference I would say is encourage versus require and I think we'd like to hear from both sides, the CPAC as well as Corp Council planning. I don't know who we want to hear from first. Who's ready to go first? Mr. Weltman, okay.

So obviously we prefer or require, and it says as feasible on-site, so that seems like it accommodates any concerns about not being possible in some cases.

Either planning or Corp Council or both?

I think this may be a DPW question as well, but you generally have stormwater rules and other subdivision standards that have a those requirements put in them. So I would I think the issue is having a different set of standards in your plan when you can make that as a code change and So I think that was the concern there in that case. So I think discussing with DPW on the current requirements and how this would affect the requirements and doing this rather than as a overall code change. Um, I think would be, uh, you know, something to discuss. Certainly you would want to have as feasible, um, as a way if you're reviewing those to, um, you know, because there could be conceivably a single family home having to get an SMA permit in certain cases or things like that where, um, That could be that could be difficult. But I think that's the general idea of trying to be consistent where if you've got code standards for for this, would you want to be consistent with that or do a code amendment rather than have this only apply in South Maui and only in some of those limited cases that you discussed where the plan applies?

I mean, to me, South Maui gets the worst flooding out of the whole, I mean, on a regular basis. And then I guess my other question is in regards to the five-year storm event. I've heard planning for the 50-year storm event, the 100-year storm event. Does anyone know a definition for a five-year storm event?

Off the top of my head, no, but I can look it up.

Oh, okay. Member Cook, did you know or are you wanting to say something else?

I'm just going to say all of that data is on the list and so Public Works would have that. when engineers are doing designs and they have different criteria of what they have to accommodate for those projections. And also just say that those projections have just been, this is my words, blown out the window because in the last five years, we've had like, and I think I'm just, I may be incorrect, but I think we've had a number of hundred year storms and one 500 year storms. And so it's a whole new thing. whole new time and it is a great time to really be blending the nature base and the civil engineering together because we we need to capture and use the water and work with nature and not just trying to control it yeah i always kind of thought it was weird that they measure storms by the years rather than like say the volume but that's just me um i think this is what go ahead What they do with the measurement is the data over the last 100 years with the average rainfall is. And so they have a database of how many since they've been collecting it. for different areas and then they'll partition that off a five-year average five-year storm is this the average 100-year storms out but you know this quantity of water is going to occur once every 100 years this quantity of water and rain is going to occur every 50 years so it is a formula off of rain data and the reason that it doesn't work anymore because we're having rain like But we never had before. It's not measurable. So we're setting in the standards. And that's a layman's perspective. They could give you a little better deal, but it is a calculable thing off of data is how they come up with it. And it is a volume of water because that gives you your flow and drainage requirements.

So I guess my recommendation is to put a pin in this one until we are able to have DPW on the line. So we'll come back to that stuff. You can make a note too. I have it like highlighted, but just in case I forget.

Let's see.

Staff, if you can flash up page 72 from attachment 3A. This is another one that changed back and forth. Started out encourage any new, then encourage commercial. So the recommended at the end is encourage commercial shoreline developments, redevelopments, or improvements to include public restrooms near beach access points to improve, or that's it. and the CPAC version was any new shoreline developments and redevelopments or improvements should include public restrooms near beach access points to improve ocean water quality. So it was changed from any to encourage only commercial near public access. I thought I saw Ms. Komkowicz had her hand up.

I put my hand down because I realized it does actually say commercial on there. Oh, okay.

So it went from any need to encourage commercial shoreline development. Any comments from our CPAC chair and vice chair on this one? Are they okay with those changes? I can understand the change to commercial because if you're just building your own house, you're not going to have a public restroom. I wouldn't want that. And then I guess I could understand the encourage because can we tell commercial developments that they have to have a public restroom? I'm not sure. Is that right, Mr. Hopper? We can't say you need to have a public restroom.

I mean, the general, normally for conditions and things like that, you'd need to have the nexus and rough proportionality with Nolan and Dolan. So in a given case, if their impact led to, I guess, some type of nexus requiring a new bathroom, potentially, but not everyone, I think that's why you haven't encouraged this, because not everyone in every single case would necessarily meet that threshold. So I think that's why you have the language there.

like a restaurant or i mean but still they could say that their bathroom is just for their customers potentially i mean i don't think you're talking about comfort stations like you'd have in a beach park every time there's a commercial development um so again i think you need to look at

If you're doing an SMA project review, if you're looking at a subdivision and things like that, that may be something, you know, I think this would flag that for maybe the planning department to look at that with the developer and see, you know, what those impacts are. But I think it would potentially depend, you know, on that case to have developed, you know, things open to the public. So I'm not sure if the intention is like comfort stations, which would sort of, I mean, I don't know of many new commercial developments that would necessarily build comfort stations. I don't know if you have sort of some kind of impact fee thing that you could think of as those happen so that that can fund county doing that or state doing that. But I mean, I'm not sure what the intention is here. I kind of looked at it as public rent. Well, you're talking about public restrooms, so it's probably not your restrooms in your average restaurant. But the general issue is the nexus might not be there for every single commercial shoreline development, and that's why you have the language. All those specifics you're talking about, interesting conversation, but I think that explains the language at least.

Okay, and the CPAC's version did say should, not must. The draft guidelines said may include. So none of it was like a hard line, like should doesn't mean it must be done. Any comments from our CPAC resources?

The language of new shoreline developments and redevelopments comes from the planning department, so we didn't change that. So the thing about the commercial part, I guess, is added very recently, so I can't comment on that.

Okay, I guess, you know, This was in the transition from one staff to another, so they had to work off of language they didn't fully support. And someone said, what if I'm building my house, I don't want to have a public restroom at the front of my house, which is understandable, I guess. So that being said, I will entertain a motion to amend 2.4.16 on page 46 to say, encourage commercial shoreline developments, redevelopments or improvements to include public restrooms near beach access points.

So moved.

Moved by Member Sinensi, seconded by Member Johnson. All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. Chair, six ayes, zero noes, three excused. Members Patonga and Uuhajins and Sugimura, motion passes. Thank you.

Mr. Ramirez, can you flash up page 73 of attachment 3A? Okay, so this was a CPAC original policy. It evolved a bit. to the final language being for new restrooms at McKenna State Park. Encourage the implementation of technology and techniques that protect and preserve water quality in nearby wetlands. Kind of the same gist, but different words. I think there was a concern about like, Septic, sespo, septic, something like that, Ms. Komkovic.

The SMA permit for this has already been approved. So you can, deleting this policy would be probably the best thing to do.

Is there any chance that there might be additional or new in McKenna in the future?

In McKenna State Park?

Correct.

not that I am aware of or have heard of because it's just gonna be built right now. It would be kind of strange.

So there is a 10th, 20-year life on it. Members, since the SMA permit has already been approved, any objection to deleting 2.4.17 on page 46 of your draft plan? Member Sinensi?

No objections, Chair, but just a question for Ms. Kamkiewicz. The permit has been improved, but what was the, did the design include like a leach field? Do you know?

Thank you, Chair Palten. So Councilmember Sinensi, the SMA permit has been approved. They are using collection systems there so that it doesn't leach into the environment there. And it's kind of set close to the parking lot. I'd have to pull up the plans, but they did go through the Planning Commission and actually they came back to the Planning Commission with modifications to make sure that they are minimizing any environmental impacts.

And it was already approved. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that report. Thank you, Chair.

I'll entertain a motion to delete 2.4.17 on page 46 of the draft plan. Moved by members Sinensi, seconded by member Johnson. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 excused. Members Uhu, Hodgins, Sugimura and Betonga on motion passes.

Okay, let's see, 2.4.18 was an original by the CPAC and there were no changes recommended throughout and I have no changes to recommend myself. All right, do members want to continue on right now or do they wanna take an early lunch? Member Johnson.

Chair, just to let everybody know, I have to take the 3.30 ferry back to Lanai today, so my afternoon is going to be cut short. I might have to leave maybe 2.45, 2.30-ish.

Thank you.

Okay. Early lunch. Early lunch. Member Cook?

I wanted to ask planning about 2.4.17. I like it. It's very appropriate. It's what we need. I was just curious... It's in our plan. It's going to be an upcountry plan. It's just encourage coordination between South Maui and upcountry groups in discussing planning and managing the Pula and Honoula watersheds, which is what we've been talking about in all of these things and what's really needed. So I like it. I was just curious how the planning department weighed in and all that.

There was no changes recommended from the original draft.

Planning, any additional context? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Cook. The Planning Department supports this policy for the South Maui and the upcountry areas to coordinate.

Thank you.

And Mr. Wiltman had something to add as well.

There is, it doesn't have a formal name, but they kind of call themselves the Kulumoku Watershed Hui, has been meeting ever since then. So it was formed as a basis, on the basis of this, incorporates DLNR and upcountry groups and various others. So it's kind of in progress. Okay.

And we didn't propose any change to that, Charlie?

No, I'm not talking on this subject. I'm going to talk about something else.

Talk about something else.

Okay. As you folks know, I've been sick for the last two and a half weeks. I forgot to say yesterday that member of vice chair Sugimura attended the Ariyoshi services on Oahu in my place. So I just wanted to mention that. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you for mentioning that. Um, I guess my main concern is that we have quorum for the afternoon. Um, it does say member Sugimura will come back at 1 30. Member Uhuhaqjin said she was coming back at 1.30. I'll be here at 1.30. So we need to try and see if we have at least five. So Member Cook will be here at 1.30. And Member Sinensi and Member... Okay, we will have quorum instructions before I set you loose into the wild for lunch. We'll be coming back on attachment four for... 2.5 Responsible Stewardship unless we have Director Molina, then we'll be going back to those four policies from earlier. 2.5 only has two pages of policies up to 2.5.17, so I think we should be able to finish that today. Hopefully we can go back to the other four policies. But I think the main thing, if we finish all 2.4, 2.5, I wanted to go into starting to talk about any policy decisions or how we're going to evaluate the implementing actions. maybe if we can get guidance from Corp Council about how 2.80 and community plans talks about the fiscal plan part of it because we had heard some testimony and some of the members expressed like how can we have all these action items when we don't know the entirety of the cost in terms of 500 million or what and like that and maybe if we can get just a little guidance from our attorneys and maybe a run through from planning on how they met the guideline or met the legislation ordinance about how community plans are formed. and things like that. So I wasn't gonna jump into section four. If we had time, I wanted to kind of discuss the code and the legal requirements relating to fiscal so that when we jump into section four, we have more of an idea of what it is that we need to be in compliance with the community plan ordinance specifically. And then we can also discuss other people's feelings about the financial outlook, I guess. If we are able to finish section two. Okay, so any questions before I set you free? All right, be free, my little chickadees.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, group.

What time are we recessing to? Till 1.30, standard. Okay, we'll be in recess till 1.30. Will the Recess, Disaster Recovery, International Affairs and Planning Committee return to order? The time is 1.34. We left off on... the start of 2.5, although if we get someone from Public Works, we may backtrack on four specific policies. So we're a little bit at the mercy of the Department of Public Works on those outstanding four policies, because we're not gonna, we want them to be here when we start to take those up. If everyone can pull out their attachment for page two, and compare it to page 47 of the draft plan. The main additions, I think, are this second paragraph and the last sentence of the first paragraph. I think viewpoints were changed to viewsheds, which is a real word. And other than that, it's more or less the same gist. The main change that I saw was in paragraph two, or it's not a change, it's more of an addition. And then the last sentence. Personally, I do like the updated language. And... My understanding is the cross-cutting topics will be included as they were on page 47. Is that correct, Karen? Yes, that is correct. Okay, perfect. Okay, so I will entertain a motion to strike the why is it important section on page 47 and replace it with the why is it important on attachment for page two.

So moved.

Moved by member Johnson, seconded by member Uhu Hodgins. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, I'm seeing six ayes, zero noes, three excused members, Tsukimura, Betongan, and Sinensi. Motion passes.

Thank you. I thought I might have seen Director Molina join the call. If you're not ready, we can move on to point 5.1, but just flash your photo whenever you're ready to discuss those ones we skipped over. Okay, next, if we can go to page 75 of attachment 3A. Thank you, Mr. Ramirez. So this, policy did undergo some changes from the department's proposal to the CEQA tax version, and then it went through several more changes. Oh, can somebody let member Sugimura in? She may have wanted to vote on that other one, but it passed anyway. Is there a reason for an echo? No reason for an echo, and the echo will only be in your house.

Okay, maybe I should go off and come back.

Okay, we'll allow it. So, um, The CPAC version was required development project seeking county permits or exemptions to provide continued access to Kuleana lands and preserve and protect access to areas both Mauka and Makai for any lands where native Hawaiian rights were customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, including fishing, hunting, and gathering cultural or religious purposes. Applicable laws include Section 7-1, Hawaii Revised Statutes, Article 12, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution, Hawaii Supreme Court Pasha Opinion 79, Hawaii 425, 1995. And then the recommended version says, ensure development projects provide continued access to Kuleana lands and to areas both Mauka and Makai where native Hawaiian rights were customarily and traditionally exercised. These rights may be exercised for subsistence, including fishing, hunting, and gathering cultural or religious purposes. And then it doesn't cite the specific applicable laws. So I think whoever, knows the laws, knows the laws. So that's okay on not citing the specific laws in my opinion because they're still there. I'm okay also with the seeking county permits because we know the triggers for this would be like an SMA permit, a subdivision, a change in zoning, or a special use permit. even if they were seeking a county permit, it wouldn't be triggered necessarily unless it's like a special use permit. So other than that, the main difference is requiring the CPAC version to ensure in the... recommended changes version. So let's do on that while I recognize Councilmember Yuki Le Sugimura and see if she has any disclosures for us, if she's alone or not.

Yeah, good afternoon, everybody, and thank you for letting me into the meeting, and I'm here in this workspace by myself.

Thank you. And also, Shane is back. Anybody, nobody have any updated disclosures? All the previous disclosures remain in effect. Okay, Charlie. Oh, members, Rollins, Fernandez, do you have an updated disclosure for us?

I do. Mahalo, Chair. I am in my... I'll soon be joining another meeting in a public place, but right now I'm in my vehicle. When we give our disclaimer, is this workspace sufficient? I thought we had to say where we were.

That's a lawyer question. There's one lawyer in the room, Mr. Hopper? Or Ms. Nakata, I guess, is online.

Yeah, you're a little quiet, or a little hard to hear. What was the question about the disclosure? If you've changed positions, whether you need to update, or I didn't quite catch that. And then Ms. Nakata may have something to add, but I just wanted to get what the question, the Sunshine Law question was.

Yeah, under Sunshine Law, I don't have it pulled up because I'm on my phone. But I think under Chapter 92, it requires us to say where we are, which is why we say we're at our president's or in our vehicle or in our office or whatever. But we don't just say this workspace.

I don't think it would necessarily require you to stay where you are. I think if you do change locations, you would disclose that.

No, no, that's not my question. My question is not about changing. It's about staying where you are.

You're supposed to state, I believe it's your location and anyone who's with you. Now, how precise that has to be, I mean, I think at your home or in your vehicle, I would be sufficient. Again, I'd like to know the sort of specific facts we're looking at, but I'll look up the law and check it out. But my recollection is you state your location and who's with you. And I don't think you need to be, you know, a pin in it showing your exact location.

But I think if you say at your home and... Oh, here's the fact, Mr. Hopper, and maybe I can hear from Ms. Nakata. Member Sugimura said this workspace... And so if that's sufficient, then I'm going to just say this workspace from now on, if that's how vague we can be.

Any lawyer have an opinion on that?

Yeah, I think it's a good idea to state where you are. I mean, you know, perhaps more specific than that.

Hey, Chair. I don't want to make this an issue. So I'm in a private workspace.

Is that sufficient, Mr. Hopper?

Here, let me look this up so we can get the exact wording. I wasn't really thinking of, I have other issues prepared to talk about, but this wasn't the one at the moment. So please let me look that up and let's discuss with those. Yes. Also, because I haven't been at all of your meetings where this has been, I want to be consistent with what's what's happened so I can look at that and maybe discuss. Thank you.

Miss Nakata, do you have any opinion?

Sorry, Chair, I'm looking that up currently as well. We'll get back to you. Okay.

Oh, go ahead, Charlie, while we wait.

I was going to ask planning the difference between require and ensure.

Oh, keep planning while we're waiting for our lawyers to look stuff up. Unless it takes you a while to look stuff up too.

This changes because it's already required by law. So we would be ensuring the law is being followed.

Oh, that's a good. Okay. Thank you. Does our CPAC guests understand and agree with that? Okay, they gave us a thumbs up because already required by law, so ensuring that the required laws are followed. Is it okay to take a vote before we know the answer of the legal question? Or should we wait to take the vote until we know the answer to the legal question? Continue on, okay. All those in favor? Oh, so I would entertain a motion to replace the language on page 48 of the draft plan for 2.5.1 policy with the recommended changes in the far right corner of page 75 of attachment 3A. So moved. Moved by Member Johnson, seconded by Member Rollins-Fernandez. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Chair, we have eight ayes, zero nos, one excuse. Member Patonga, motion passes. Nice.

Carla, go ahead.

Yes, Chair. Under Section 92-3.7A of the HRS, it states that a board holding a remote meeting pursuant to this section, which this section is a remote meeting, shall not be required to allow members of the public to join board members in person at non-public locations where board members are physically present or to identify those locations in the notice required by section 92-7 provided that at the meeting each board member shall state the name of any person 18 years of age or older who is present at the non-public location with the member. provided further that the name of a person under the age of 18 years shall be stated if the person has a personal business property or financial interest on any issue before the board at the meeting. So it really just refers to the non-public location in the HRS. Thank you, Chair.

So we're good to continue. That was a lot of legalese in there.

Yes, Chair, I think we're good.

Okay, thank you. All right, Mr. Ramirez, can you flash up page 76 of attachment 3A for us? Okay, so this policy 2.5.2, you can see the evolution from the department's draft to the CPAC's draft. to the Planning Commission's draft, to the Drafting Guidelines draft, to finally the recommended policy. I personally do like the recommended policy. Does our CPAC resources have any issue with the recommended policy? Try that, you see to the right of you, to the right of you, Mr. Conner, try to press the button on the bottom. and try talk.

Talking. Yeah, that works. So I think, yeah, generally I feel fine with it. I just want more clarification in connected. How are we defining connected?

Individuals.

Knowledgeable persons connected. Connected with the project area.

How? I would go probably to Department of OUV Resources because I think the change came in at that level. Is this a change that you collaborated on making, Deputy Robinson? Mahalo Chair. Connected was also in your folks draft?

Yeah, I just want to see if we're all on the same page. Okay, same page. Good point.

How would the Department of OED Resources define a knowledgeable individual connected with the project area?

Mahalo, Chair. It looks like in this policy, the development projects would consult with NHO, also the Department of OEV Resources. I'm not quite sure if you're asking if the Department of OEV Resources would be the one responsible then to reach out to folks with genealogical ties, cultural practitioners, or knowledgeable individuals connected with the space.

I think it would be probably the development projects definition since they would be the one reaching out and then if it was questioned, they would be the one saying how the individual is connected to the area. And I imagine that would be the same through the CPAC and the recommended changes because it's the development project doing the engagement.

Yes, thank you, Chair. So when we reviewed this policy with planning, we requested to be one of the... Consulted. Yeah, consulted in this space. Mahalo.

And at the time when the CPAC reviewed it, Department of OEB Resources hadn't come into existence yet? That's correct. Okay. All right, then. Any further discussion before I make my recommendation? No? I will entertain a motion to strike 2.5.2 on page 48 of the draft plan and replace it with the recommended changes on page 76, attachment 3A, 2.5.2, far right corner.

So moved.

Moved by member Johnson. Seconded by Member Sinensi. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

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

Thank you. So 2.5.3 had no changes from the department's initial proposal. So moving on from there. 2.5.4 had no changes from the initial changes made to CPAC. I did have a question on 2.5.4. At one point, we had talked about conflicting policies, and I think in safe, healthy, and livable communities for all, there were two policies that asked specifically for lighting, one the minimum lighting and one was just lighting. And so is there any issue that this would conflict with those other two policies or we're good? I don't know if that's a lawyer or a planning question.

I don't think that would conflict because you can have downward shielded lights, you know, and according to ordinance, it has to be warm light and both of those protect the dark skies.

Okay, so we're not in conflict with policy 2.5.4 and there were no changes from the CPAC version. Stop me at any time if you folks would like to propose an amendment, but I don't have any recommendation for amendment for 2.5.4. Similarly for 2.5.5, no changes. Mr. Ramirez, if you can flash up page 78 of attachment three, this one had an evolution to it. My preference is for the recommended version. It seems streamlined and nice wording. Um So where the CPAC draft said, ensure existing government trails are preserved during the discretionary review and entitlement process, including changes in zoning, community plan amendments, state land use district boundary amendments, the review of environmental assessments and impact statements, development in special management area and shoreline area, and the review of subdivisions by consulting with Department of Land and Natural Resources, NAWLA, LAHELE program, and other government, agencies as appropriate. The recommended version says, ensure existing government trails and historical roads are preserved and restored during the discretionary review and entitlement process by consulting with the Department of Land and Natural Resources, NAAH, Ala Hele Program and other government agencies as appropriate. The entitlement process includes change of zoning, community plan amendments, state land use district boundary amendment, the review of environmental assessments, impact statements, and development in the special management area and shoreline area, and the review of subdivisions. To me, it's really similar and it's just like, you know, organized a little bit differently and more clear. Member Johnson.

I might have a legal question here, but in regards to historical roads, we often hear that term old government roads. How does that interplay with historical roads? There's differences, same, that's my question.

Well, I think it depends on the definition. There's a county code definition for old government road, which is generally a road that neither the state nor the county asserts jurisdiction over. But there's evidence is a public road. That's what an old government road, at least in the code, is referred to as. And in this case, I'm not sure what exactly historical road is meant. That was... maybe could be discussed by the department. But historical road could mean a variety of things beyond old government road.

So maybe we could get to that. Who put in historical roads? And I'd like to learn a little bit more about it.

Either OEV or planning. I'm not sure which of you folks decided to add historical roads.

I'm not sure either, but I can speak to historical roads, especially in South Maui. We have the King's Trail, that historic road that connected all of Maui together for resource sharing. Portions of the King's Road has been You know, destroyed by development. There are portions that still exist to today. So when I hear historic road, possibly could be referring to Pilani's Trail. Mahalo.

Okay. I totally support that. I just wanted to be clear on that. Thank you.

Mr. Kalaniko?

Just push it up, a little button up. Yeah, good question, because there was an ask recently to identify exit routes more south in South Maui because there's only one route out. And part of my task was to identify those old government roads. And I knew to this, but the people that asked me to check on this, is to follow up on the government side, like if the county, state gave up that government road. There's a process, I think, because if it was not, then I think we can use those roads for exit points. So I think the historical part, I think the government part, I think that needs to be identified or fine-tuned, I don't know how.

if that makes sense with everyone because... Like add in existing government trails, old government roads, and historical roads?

I mean, for me personally, I would support protecting the Kings Trail and doing things such as that. the old government road sounds like a can of worms, but if we wanna protect it, then okay, I just wanna kinda hear what the reasoning was before I make a decision. Thank you, Chair.

And then the other part of it is can the Kings Trail be restored if we're entering Existing government trails and historical roads are preserved and restored. I think in some parts of West Maui, when the portion of the road was destroyed, something else was put in its place. Would we need to the extent practicable on the restoration part? I don't know how the King's Trail looks in South Maui, if there are portions of it that were destroyed, another development took its place and then in that way it's unable to be restored. We may need to make adjustment for that.

I think that's correct, both due to, I think, what you've identified as a potential impossibility, as well as, you know, restoring a road. I guess you could see in cases where some of these entitlements may be for a certain project where the impacts of that project, you know, you understand, maybe preserve the road, but But to require like if you're going to build a house in the S. M. A. You have to restore the road that could you could have a proportionality issue with that as well. So I think to the extent practicable for both of those reasons would seem to make sense.

Okay. Um, remember who had to.

Thank you, Chair. That's kind of what I was going to as well, to what extent are some of these roads allowed to be restored even? I get Member Johnson's point, you know, and Director Robinson's point about the King's Trail for sure. But then, like, looking at your district, right, and my district has a lot of historic roads or government old government roads from plantation era. Mommy, my grandma used to ride on the old poly road to go out to Lahaina when she was a young girl. It would be impractical to to restore that to what was especially if like what if there's a little portion as we just heard. So that's I mean, I raised my hand a little earlier, but then you kind of said no, no, perfect. Because you said exactly what I was trying to go to. Same with Member Johnson. And then I'm wondering if we need to clarify that these really aren't going to be for driving purposes if we do, like, you don't want to drive on the old poly road or have any cars on the King's Trail, right? Like even in our, in my area, because we do tend to use all the other community plans as a framework for the next. There are certain areas that like the old roads go through gulches that really wouldn't be easy to go through anymore. So you guys kind of talked it out before I got to it, but I agree with you folks. And I was on a same mental thought.

So maybe something along the lines of ensure existing government trails and historic roads are preserved and restored to the extent practicable and used in the original way intended or something along those lines. Oh, Mr. Weltman.

So the restoring part is a new proposal to be added.

Wait, Mr. Wiltman, maybe if you can turn it at a 45 degree angle, like how mine is, when it's up like, yeah, like.

Okay, is that okay?

A little bit angled down.

Yeah, there you go. There you go. So, yeah, the restoring part was just added. That's a new proposal to be added. And I would hate that to come in the conflict with the preserving. So I would like to always preserve, but then restore to the extent possible.

leave preserved as is and have the to the extent practicable only refer to the restored part. I'm okay with that. I'm just not a good enough English speaker to figure out how to verbiage that. Member Rollins-Fernandez, followed by Member Lee.

Hello, Chair. And I don't have any wordsmithing to offer at the moment on that. But I think like one of the points, and maybe this is a question for Deputy Director Robinson, these roads were not privately public. If you can talk a little louder. Oh, yeah. Sorry. They're like public road portrayals. And so even if there's a development, that path is not privately owned by the developer. It's still publicly held.

it it needs to be like avoided as far as like development goes they can't just like develop over land that is publicly held yeah that's kind of where the um distinction was the preserved we want to say ensure it's preserved but the restored part would, to the extent practicable, would only apply to the restored part because prior to all the current day laws, I think some folks must have destroyed what shouldn't have been destroyed. Deputy Robinson, did you have something to add?

I, mahalo. The, We are at a point in our community, especially with the native Hawaiian community and all of our allies, that we have the skill and ability to restore what was built by our kupuna. And so if it is possible, and I mean possible as far as the support from the community and the support from our leadership to do restoration and to work with developers who may have had portions of historic trails on their property, we have the capacity to do that. I would love to see that happen on behalf of our community and on behalf of our visiting community too. I think it's an important responsibility to take care of some of the traditional historic roads. There's so much history behind that, and South Maui holds many of those historical roads, those ones that were built by Pi'ilani in the 1600s and 1500s, roads that connected all of our communities. And we sit here in the county council connected to each other, all of our communities. And so, If we stop at preservation, that's beautiful. But our kupuna in the 70s, my kupuna specifically, worked for restoration, worked for us to be able to utilize those spaces as a community. And like Council Member Rollins-Fernandez said, it belongs to all of us, not just me, not just Kalanikau, but all of us. So I would definitely always advocate for restoration as well. And I thank you folks for this time. Mahalo. Thank you. Chair Lee?

I think this is a question also for Public Works, you know, because there is a cost to all of this. And I may as well say it and hopefully not offend anybody, but as Deputy Director Robinson said, and she probably represents a lot of people, to restore something, to preserve the and the bones, to preserve historical places, all of this has a cost to it. So it would be good to know Priority, what is the priority? Because we can't financially do everything, it's impossible. So it would be great to know what the priorities are, but in this particular case, I would think it would come under the oversight of Department of Public Works and what opinion he has about preserving versus restoration.

Okay, well, this isn't an action item, it's a policy. So it's not to fall on the County of Maui to do it, it's just a policy. But if we can hear from Planner 5 Komkovic. Thank you for saying exactly what I was going to say.

This is, um, for when you're reviewing developments and subdivisions to ensure that these roads are preserved. Um, I did want to mention that maybe putting restored to the extent practical cabal at us as a separate sentence so that it is separated from the main part.

Okay, so it's not an action item that the county is gonna undertake. It's just a policy. Go ahead, Terri.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Paltin. But as I go through this process, I'm thinking that this is not just a wishlist. This is something I hope that is done, that is actually accomplished. So I don't think things should go on the wishlist that are never gonna be happened, never gonna be built, never gonna be realized. I'm hoping this is a serious exercise, because whatever we agree on, I hope to see one day.

Okay, we'll take that into account when we get to the action items. Member Rollins-Fernandez?

Yeah, Mahalo, Chair. I wasn't finished when Chair Lee jumped in and interrupted. So my follow-up question to Deputy Director Robinson, because what I understand her saying is that, you know, before a if I'm aimed for restoration.

Every other word gets really soft.

The goal is restoration, not just preservation. And the kuleana doesn't have to be on the county. The government just needs to not prevent the community groups from being able to do the restoration. I don't see any government restoring any local i'a. That is not the kuleana of government. That's the people who are going to take on that kuleana in the community, the people who have that i'ke. And so similar to this, it doesn't have to be the county to do this restoration or the developer. They just cannot make restoration impossible by paving over it. So that's what I understood when Deputy Director Robinson spoke. And so if she could confirm that understanding when she was providing her remarks on there.

Deputy Robinson. I'm a hollow chair. I pull a knee. No, I okay. Like, oh, man. Oh, that is exactly what I mean. Please do not make restoration impossible model.

Okay, and then Ms. Komkovic, when we separate it into two sentences, Did you have a framework as to what that could look like? Because as we're ensuring existing government trails and historical roads are preserved, there's the during the discretionary review and entitlement process by consulting with the Department of Land and Natural Resources, not Ala Hele Program and other government agencies as appropriate. And allow for existing government trails and historical roads to be restored to the extent practicable? Is that what you had envisioned?

Yes, that is. But instead of an and, I would just put a period and then separate it into two sentences. The reason this is restructured is because it's way too long according to county guidelines. So you'd put a period at the end of preserved? Right after it says government agencies as appropriate period, and then put roads and trails, allow roads and trails to be restored. Maybe even encourage roads and trails to be restored to the extent practicable.

Okay. All right, then. So I would recommend for... I would entertain a motion to amend page 48 of the draft plan by striking 2.5.6 in the draft plan and replacing it with Ensure existing government trails and historical roads are preserved during the discretionary review and entitlement process by consulting with the Department of Land and Natural Resources, not Ala Hele Program and other government agencies as appropriate. encourage the restoration of existing government trails and historical roads to the extent practicable, Period. The entitlement process includes change of zoning, community plan amendment, state land use district boundary amendment, the review of environmental assessments and impact statements, development in the special management area and shoreline area, and the review of subdivisions. Period.

So moved.

Moved by Member Johnson. Seconded by Member Uuhajins. Any further discussion? Chair Lee.

I missed the part where you added to the extent practicable. Where was that part?

And restored was taken out of the first sentence and it was ended at appropriate. Then a second sentence was added to say, encourage the restoration of existing government trails and historical roads to the extent practicable, period. And then it goes on to the last sentence. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. I can support this even if it adds to the extent practicable. I think it acknowledges that the colonization inflicted on Kanaka'o'iwi was violent and the erasure was intense. We almost lost our language, our roads, our infrastructure, our hula, and maybe at one point in time when our people were told to be good American,

then you know it looked like it was going to be an impossible job for restoration but that's not the reality today so i support this monitor thank you any further discussion seeing none all those in favor raise your hand and say aye eight eyes zero no is one excuse member patongan motion passes thank you is your camera on yes can you not see me okay No, cannot.

I can see you, Chair.

Okay. Interesting. Mr. Ramirez, can you flash up for us page 79, 3A, attachment 3A? This policy also ran the gamut of revisions. And... I do like the recommended change. I did have a question on how this is enforced, probably for planning.

It would be during the subdivision review, during the SMA permit. Let me just go back to that last policy. State land use district boundary amendment, change of zoning, subdivisions. These trees are noted on plans, and so we would see the removal.

Yeah, but we want to stop the removal, right? Because... If we saw the removal, then it's not preserved.

So then we would be able to say that goes against the community plan. Healthy trees must be preserved. Currently, there's nothing like this.

Oh, okay. And then, so is there a contemplation of a penalty if it gets removed when it shouldn't have been removed? Or how does that work out?

That would have to be through ordinance.

So it's just the policy at this point? It's all that we can do here. All right, that's all we can do here. Let's see. So what we're contemplating is the recommended changes, which I felt were, very similar to the other drafts. It does incorporate Department of OEB resources as they weren't in existence when the CPAC was made. Any objection to the recommended changes? Go ahead, Charlie.

Does healthy mature trees includes albezia trees in Olinda?

No, because this policy is for the South Maui community plan area.

Yeah, that's right. Luckily, there's none in South Maui, right?

So that is the reason that the non-native trees known to be invasive in Hawaii may be removed was added to the recommended changes to ensure that things like kiawe, albezia, eucalyptus can be removed.

Okay, good. Thank you.

Mr. Kanaheli?

Chair, I do like what's here. A question I have with, it seems like a lot is being put on OEV resources. Do they have the capacity to monitor this? Or will they have the capacity to monitor it?

they won't be the monitor. I believe it will be planning. And then if it pertains to OEV, then they will coordinate. So OEV, the intention is not for OEV to monitor everything. There's triggers upon which the community plan, you know, is reviewed for compliance, which is like SMA permits, subdivision, SUP, special use permits and like that. So if those things are changing zoning at that time, planning will look at the applicable general plans, Maui Island plans, community plans. And if that is triggered about Department of OEB resources, then at that point they reach out to OEB resources. Go ahead, Deputy Robinson.

Mahalo, Chair. I can provide two examples where this has happened in the past, Mr. Kanahele. The first was the development at Maui Beach. I think that's what it's called, down in Kahului Harbor, when the developer was going to put the hotel there and took out, I think, 40 or 50 coconut trees that had been at Kahului Harbor for a long time. I believe even some of those trees had weathered the tsunami back in, I forget when, the 40s. And so, 46. Yeah, 46. So they allowed for Department of OEV to contact practitioners to then collect and save those trees in exchange for doing blessing there. And so many of those trees now have been given a new life and reused. The second example that I can give for South Maui is, I believe it was, I can't remember, it was a storm last year, but At the Kihei Canoe Club site at Kalai Pohaku, there was an old milo tree that came down, so our archaeologists worked together with the Department of Public Works to make sure it was safe to remove, and then the Department of OIV Resources has that milo preserved for when a cultural practitioner can give that milo a new life. seeing that it had been at Kalaipohaku for a long time. Many of us grew up climbing on that milo tree. So yeah, we want to make sure that those resources can go to cultural practitioners and be given new life as opposed to just being thrown away. Mahalo.

Okay. Member Johnson.

Chair, this is an overall statement, but I really appreciate the evolution of how this went down. You can see from the drafts. And I just want to applaud Department of OEV. Sometimes they would just throw this stuff away and throw it in the garbage, and now all of a sudden we're using it. And I really just appreciate the process of how it came up to be that now the story you just shared is exactly how we should have been doing this a long time ago. So thank you.

It makes me feel good, too, because my husband got in a fight with a coconut tree in our yard, and it'll soon be a pahu drum, maybe. Probably a pahu drum. It wasn't that tall, but he bit into a coconut, and some of his teeth came out, so the tree had to come down.

You're not preserving it?

It's now the site of our new Pua Keni Keni tree. I'll show you pictures later on. Hopefully nobody tells my husband I told that story. All right then. Seeing no further discussion, I will entertain a motion to strike on page 48 of the draft plan, policy 2.5.7, and replace it with the recommended changes policy on the far right corner of page 79 of attachment 3A.

So moved.

Moved by member Johnson, second by member Uuhajins. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

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

Thank you. Okay. Moving along to attachment 3A, page 80. Mr. Ramirez, if you can flash that up on the screen. The main issue, I think, is why, if we can go to either planning or carp council, why was, but may not be removed or diminished, taken out?

Yeah, Chair, I think the reason here is because I think it misstates the law. The council can always consider a community plan amendment to change the community plan. So I think that portion of it was most likely the reason for the change in language because the council can amend a community plan map through a process in the charter and the code. So I don't think you can necessarily say you can never amend an open space designation because the council would reserve that legislative ability to do that.

So it's going beyond the authority of a community plan and taking away rights that are granted to a future council, basically?

Yeah, I think that's basically the idea.

Oh my goodness, I'm starting to understand legalese. Mr. Weltman?

This is only during the subdivision or development process?

Even if it's only during the subdivision or development process, is the council involved in the subdivision process? I don't...

Believe we are no, but I mean, generally you also couldn't change a community plan designation. Through a subdivision, you'd need to have the community plan changed the development process. I presume dealt with things like that. But, um, I mean, I don't know. if you have a community plan open space designation in the community plan, generally, that would be your designation. And if we're looking at doing a new thing like trying to allow flexibility in the subdivision process, that would sort of be odd. Are we talking about shifting around Community plan designations as part of a subdivision that would be a bit odd because you're changing a community plan map as part of a subdivision. I don't know if there's been a longer discussion on that topic, but, um, I don't know of a case where that's done because normally. That's like a community plan amendment through subdivision and I don't know of a case where we've. Had that happen, so I'm not sure conceptually what we're looking at here, but I think the reason for the for the change and I can consult with, um, mission and a call on this is that generally, um, you know, the, the authority of changing community plans rest with council. Um, uh, would be would be through the council process.

So you are not favorable to during the subdivision process, the open space designations identified in the community plan map may be realigned to better protect cultural resources, but may not be removed or diminished. And then during the development process, having it as worded, that's not what you would be comfortable with?

When I first read this, I had thought that meant during that process, you would do a subdivision, but with an accompanying community plan amendment to amend the community plan. If that's not the case, then maybe this is one we can have a larger discussion on. If we're sort of looking at for the first time to allow some flexibility in a subdivision to realign community plan boundaries, I'd want to have a larger discussion on that because as I think the council knows, generally when you adopt community plan land use boundaries, um they are what they are until you know council would decide to to amend those through the process so maybe that's a greater discussion item if there's something i'm not quite understanding here that the departments worked through um but that's i think when i first read this i assumed that said when you amend when the council goes to amend the community plan here's how it works with the open space and it could never change You can never diminish them in certain areas. And if that's not what this means, I think we need to discuss that further.

Yeah, I think because some of the areas in, I don't know if you call it deep South Maui or the Makena, Wailea 670 area, maybe the original archaeological reports didn't, maybe identify all the sensitive cultural areas and maybe didn't prioritize them correctly and so if people that know about them were to say like this area is way more sacred than this other area where you have it to not be developed and are okay with realigning the subdivision, I think that's what we would like to allow for, is for them to, during their subdivision, protect the most important areas to the community. We would like to allow for that, because why would you wanna protect a lesser area when you could then protect a better area? Those areas are kind of like, you know, areas where modern day population don't go as much. And when they were identifying our archaeological features, many of us weren't even aware of what they were and so that they would be important to preserve because we didn't have that kind of knowledge of what everyone was seeing at the time. So I think, and I'm not sure, I guess we could check in with the CPAC folks if what was the intention of this Mr. Weltman to be followed by Charlie.

I like that interpretation, but I don't think that was how it was proposed. I think it was proposed actually because someone who wanted to develop said, well, what if there's a gulch there? Let me move a few feet this way or a few feet that way.

Oh, it had to do with gulches? Yes. Okay, Charlie. You muted yourself so we can't hear what you're saying.

Oh, sorry, question for my court counsel. So Mike, the way I read this is this could be interpreted as being discriminatory against a particular applicant because it's during the subdivision or development process that we would do that, may try and make a change so that a particular development could not, would be prevented of something. So can you comment on that, please?

Well, I think my larger concern is the procedure for amending the community plan. If it says realigned, I mean, I guess you could see if something was realigned to totally mess up someone's project or something through a subdivision approval. I don't think that's what's intended. It seems like you're talking about realigning boundaries, not necessarily increasing the total amount of open space, but just changing it around. where I've seen things like this is generally not at the community plan level. Usually you'd have like the community plan designation wouldn't be open space. It would be project district or something. And then you'd have an ordinance that had open space as a certain acreage. And then that plan could get shifted around usually before subdivision as part of like a phase two approval after the council approves an ordinance. But, um, okay.

So how would you change it? How would you change it?

At this point, I don't see how you could... At this point, I don't see how you could... I want to know more about what the idea was behind realigning the community plan boundaries without going to council. I think as is, it's fine as long as... the assumption is you would have to go to council to amend the community plan. The issue with the last sentence and I think why it was struck was because there was a thought that that would mean not even the council could diminish or remove an open space designation if it's adopted. And it sounds like that wasn't the intention. But the rest of it's fine as long as it's assumed that council's going to have to realign those community plan boundaries. Once you designate something open space, you generally would have to go to council to have it undesignated open space unless there's this other process we're talking about that I hadn't seen before. Because normally in the charter, council's got to make the open space changes like that.

Well, would you, even this might seem redundant, but wouldn't you add something like subject to the approval of the council amending the community plan?

Can I speak to this for a second?

Can we let Planner 5-Comco-H speak to this for a second? Sure, sure.

I want to start by saying that the gulches in the updated plan were thoroughly researched both for flow lines and for vegetation and for depth. But the history of this is that the existing community plan, the open space does not precisely align with where drainage features were. And so that's actually caused some issues with where things are developed because you couldn't move the open space to be in alignment with the true feature. So the purpose of this is to allow that designation not to change the amount of acreage but just to align the designation with what it's meant to protect and as uh chair weltman said it did originate from the gulch policy there's a similar one that accompanies the gulch policy and then cpac added this for the um for the cultural resources as well, because those are two resources that it's good to protect accurately instead of from the sky.

So your opinion on, but may not be removed or diminished?

Because ideally they would not be removed or diminished. It would just be realigning the designations to more accurately protect.

So you're suggesting that we just merely remove that last sentence, partial sentence, but may not be removed or diminished, and then it'll be okay?

It seems like it should be okay at that point, but you can confirm with Corporation Council.

I mean, this is maybe one reason why designating something open space might not provide the flexibility that some are thinking it might or should. Those boundaries are unfortunately pretty inflexible the way that they're written into our charter and the code. Once they're adopted, you've got to go to council, as I think most people know, to amend the community plan land use designations. unless I guess you could adopt a designation something other than open space that would allow exceptions for this. So I think with the last sentence deleted, that's fine, but with the understanding that to realign those boundaries, you would need a council approval unless we figure out some other policy other than the, some other method of doing that that is not currently available. Because right now though, if you designate something open space, to move it, and this is true of mapping errors. We've had to go through ordinances with mapping errors in the zoning code. That still has to go to council to fix the mapping errors and stuff like that. So you still do have to go through that process. But if you delete that last sentence, I think it's fine to have that policy, but it's not going to allow an administrative change of community plan boundaries. I don't think you can do that without going to council.

Well, could you say maybe realigned to better protect cultural resources with a community plan amendment?

That's always allowed. I imagine it doesn't need a policy. But so we should scratch the whole thing. Well, I mean, I think our resources said if we leave it the way it is, it can just stay in there. It's the but may not be removed or diminished that they wanted taken out. So if we've gone over that, that has to be taken out. The rest of the policy is okay and we can move on.

Okay.

All right, let's go on to page 49. Mr. Ramirez, if you can reflash up page 80. So the planning department who was, the planning department of that time made their draft CPAC didn't change it. Planning Commission didn't change it. There was some change in the drafting guideline with the new planning staff. And then there was some recommended changes. It looks like just, you know, not substantive. And so personally, I do favor the recommended changes. Use Ike kupuna and traditional ecological knowledge in coordination with cultural practitioners in the design of new development and redevelopment projects and environmental restoration efforts.

So moved.

Oh, okay. Member Sinensi made a motion to amend page 49, 2.5.9 and replace it with page 80 of attachment 3A recommended changes on the far right column. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by member Johnson. Any discussion?