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

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. do do

Good morning, everyone. Will the Housing Land Use Committee meeting of August 5th, 2026, please come to order. It is 9.05 a.m. Thank you very much. I'm the chair of this committee, Nohelani Uuhajins. Members, in accordance with the Sunshine Law, please identify by name who, if anyone is in the room, vehicle, workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Let's begin by saying good morning to Committee Vice Chair Kawanoe Butongan.

Hey, hello. Good morning, Chair.

Good morning. Good morning, Council Member Cook.

Good morning, Chair.

Good morning. I see Member Gabe Johnson. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, Council Members, community members. There's no testifiers here at the Lanaihe District Office, and I'm alone on my side of the office and ready to work. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Chair Alice Lee should be with us shortly. Council Member Tamara Paulton, good morning.

Aloha kakāyaka kākou streaming live and direct from the planning conference room. Thank you.

Thank you. And Councilmember Rollins Fernandez if we don't see her online I know she will be joining joining us shortly. Councilmember Shane Sinensi Aloha.

Hi. Good morning. Good morning from my private residence. I'm alone and there are no testifiers at the Molokai District Office.

Mahalo chair. Thank you very much. And Council Member Shane Sinensi, like I said, is excused and we're all sending him love and aloha to his family and his office. And Council Member Yukile Sugimura is with us as well.

Yeah. Good morning.

Good morning.

It's so nice to be here in person. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you. From the administration, we have with us Deputy Planning Director Ana Lillis. Good morning. Good morning. the Director of Finance, Marcy Martin, County Real Property Tax Administrator, Kerry Stockwell, Deputy Director of Public Works, Paul Barney, and Deputy Corporation Counsel, Nahulu Nunukawa. Thank you for joining us. We also have our wonderful HRU Committee staff. Good morning, everyone. Please see the last page of the Agenda for Information on Meeting Connectivity. Members, if there are no objections, I would like to take up both items of today's items together if that's okay with you folks thank you oh yeah i just uh does that mean three minutes or six minutes oh good question it's three minutes per item chairs three minutes per item so if they're only testifying on one resolution it's just the three minutes okay there's that um before i begin on a very long-winded speech i have to read i want to just be very clear with the public today that i will be ending this meeting at 11 45 today is my son's first day of third grade it is a wednesday so if anybody is familiar with wednesday school schedule they are power early and my son is done at 12 20. my husband who i'm very proud as a fireman is working today so i have to pick him up and i would love to pick him up on his very first day so i would be ending at 11 45 and my plan is to get as far as we can today and recess into our next regularly scheduled hlu committee meeting so thank you very much we have before us let me drink some water before i have to read all this stuff We have before us resolution 26-129 referring to the Maui Planning Commission proposed bills to amend the Kihei Makena Community Plan and the West Maui Community Plan and to change the zoning for A1 and A2 apartment district properties in the sea level rise exposure area HOU 20. Sorry. Resolution 26-130 referring to the Maui Planning Commission proposed bills to amend the Kihei Makena Community Plan and the West Maui Community Plan and to change the zoning for properties identified as tax map key 2390160119 Kihei, Hawaii and tax map keys 245013002 and 026 Lahaina, Hawaii in the A2 apartment district HLU 22. So members the items on our agenda today are resolutions as I said 26 which would refer to the Maui Planning Commission proposed bills to change the zoning for a certain apartment district properties to the H3 and H4 hotel districts to allow for continued TVR uses. The committee recently considered resolutions 26-110 and 26-111, which are similar proposals to the ones before us today, included different properties for different reasons. The council adopted and amended those versions of the resolution at its July 24th meeting. The properties in Resolution 26129 are those that are in the sea level rise exposure area or SLRXA. These properties are predicted to be impacted by sea level rise estimated by 2100. with some potentially seeing effects as well before then. So we can consider whether those properties may be better suited to continue in TVR uses rather than to allow TVR uses to be phased out in favor of residential uses so they'd be no longer viable in a few decades. The properties in Resolution 26-130 are 10 Walaka Street in Kihei, which has a single owner, a Makai Sunset Inn in Lahaina, which operates like a hotel and is in the Slorexa. I believe they also have a single owner. While those properties have qualities similar to those included, Resos 26110 and 26111, they were not on the list of the apartment district properties allowed to be used for short-term rental that was attached to the agenda when the committee took those resolutions up. That same list is attached to today's agenda as well as Exhibit 1. As part of our discussion, we can consider amending Resolution 26129 to add properties from the Exhibit 1 with similar qualities to those already included. We can also consider removing properties from either resolution. Joining us to assist us today are representatives from the Departments of Planning, Finance, and Public Works. Thank you again for being with us. And before I ask for their opening comments, Councilmember Cook, would you like to provide any opening comments as he has Resolution 26-130 as the introducer? Councilmember Cook?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I want to commend all the staff and the administration and the Council, and especially you, Chair Uhu Haugens. It's a very large task, an important task, and I want to relay that the communication with the community has been in depth. The information that we've been receiving in my office, and I believe you folks also, has been very informational and assisting us in making decisions. So I'm grateful for your work. I'm staying enthusiastic and optimistic about us threading the needle to gain homes but also maintain our economy and and allow people to use their properties appropriately so i just also have really good news the sinkhole in south maui by cam two and camp three was paved this week the administration will be uh announcing when it'll be open i believe it'll be very soon it just has to be striped and some stuff the contractor did a great job it looks beautiful the beach is Awesome. So I'm really excited. That was the way I ended my day yesterday talking with the Mason. So thank you very much, Chair.

Planning, do you have any opening comments?

Thank you chair yes we are we did send in our response letters to you folks so that should be making its way to Granicus if not already uploaded. Hopefully we'll have it shortly transmitted to you folks but I can quickly read off our comments on the resolutions. Thank you chair. So to start resolution 26 129 in the transmittal that you'll receive we previously just by way of history in 2020 we had a Slorexa response letter for 59 apartment district trans-vacation rental units. So you folks will be able to see that list. And we wanted to note that because we're talking about the sea level rise exposure area, that's available online through the PAC IOOS website that's maintained by college um and so that link will be available in our correspondence letter and so what is very helpful about that website is that allows you to see the different combination of footprints for the 3.2 sea level rise exposure area and the different factors that make it up which is passive high tide and flooding highway high wash of waves and the erosion and land loss factors so all those combination of items are included that make up the slow rexa but each of those are its own different modeling and so you can click through and see the different options there. And finally, thanks for your patience here. We also understand that based on the modeling, the Slorexa can affect the entire property. It can affect just the building. It can affect just different areas of how the site was developed. And so when we talk about like, is it fully in the Slorexa? Do we mean the entire parcel? Do we mean the building itself, just the parking lot? So just for the department's clarification, we'd want Council to discuss those factors so that we can bring the best information to the Maui Planning Commission. And then finally for Resolution 26-130 we're going to be directly commenting on the different properties. So 10 Walaka Street apparently did conduct translocation rental use in the past but the real property tax records were not updated so Department of Finance worked is working on correcting that tax class and the Department of Planning is identifying that they lawfully were conducting at least from a zoning standpoint transit vacation rental use. Makai Sunset similarly was approved for transit vacation rental use but was not updated to our Minnetonka or short-term rental occupancy list. So they were also validly conducting the use. And so those are my comments on the two resolutions, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Rana. Does Finance have any public, I'm sorry, opening statements they would like to share? No, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you.

We're just here to assist. Thank you. And if Public Works, if they have any opening comments they would like to share too, if not, that's okay.

Yeah.

For flood. But I don't see them turning on their camera. So we will just assume that they are here to help us with our discussion and we'll continue to move on. And we will go to testimony. So testifiers wanting to provide testimony should sign up in the lobby, join on the online meeting via Teams link or call into the phone number noted on today's agenda. Written testimony is encouraged and can be submitted via the e-comment link at MauiCounty.us backslash agendas as well. For individuals wishing to testify via Teams, please raise your hand by clicking on the raise your hand button. If calling in, please follow the prompts via phone star five to raise and lower your hand. and star six to mute and unmute. Staff will add names to the testifier list in the order of the testifier signing up or raising their hands. For those on teams, staff will lower your hand once your name is added. Staff will then call the name you're logged in under or the last four digits of your phone number when it is your time to testify. At that time, staff will also enable your microphone and video. Please ensure your name appears in Microsoft Teams as a name you prefer to be referred as or as anonymous if you wish to testify anonymously. If you are in person, please tell staff if you would like to testify anonymously. Otherwise, please state your name for the record at the beginning of your testimony. Oral testimony is limited to three minutes per item, and if you are still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. Once you are done testifying or you do not wish to testify, you can also view the meeting on Akaku, Channel 53, Facebook Live, or MauiCounty.us backslash agendas. We will do our best to take up each person in an orderly fashion, and we will now call on testifiers. on either of today's items. Staff, if you could please call the first testifier. Thank you.

The first individual signed up to testify is Craig Emmerich to be followed by Peg Kelly.

Hello and thank you for everyone for letting me speak here. I gave a copy of this to all the committee members by email. This is a letter describing our facility. I'm the president of Kamaole 1. It's a 12-unit condo complex on 2230 South Kihei Road. I will cut to the chase and the solar exo map I included in here as well. The water line goes past the entire building through the parking area, almost as you can see to Kihei Road, South Kihei Road. The erosion line goes all the way down the back of the building as well. I also have some photographs I've taken of the property if that can help visualize where it sits. It's right on the north end of Cam 1, Charlie Young Beach. And so there's Also, some evidence that I wanted to add as well in the attachment B that shows the affordability issues with the complex as well. There are tax assessments. They range from about $1.4 to $1.9 million. And the recent property sales around here as well that show about $1.5 million per unit for the three actually smallest units in our complex that sold in the last couple of years. I also included property taxes that were paid as well as quite a few special assessments that have happened over the years, given location and age of the building. There's been several special assessments. We have cast iron pipes that were relined, which gained us maybe 20, 30 years, but we're coming up now where that's probably going to all have to be a special assessment to replace those two. Yeah, so that is come only one. Thank you for your time.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you very much. Members any clarifying questions. Member Paltin go ahead.

DIRECTOR MACKLIN- Thank you Mr. Emmerich. Did you say that you were what was your role again. MR.

I'm the president of the homeowners association for Kamalolewan.

DIRECTOR MACKLIN- Okay. And then clarifying that you said the entirety of your property is in the. MR. 3.2. DIRECTOR MACKLIN- 3.2 rise which is currently projected at 2100. But some of the recent predictions model it faster. So I guess my clarifying question is, what is your plans for a retreat?

I don't currently have any long-term plans. The property itself, it didn't happen in the last big Kona last year, but I can't remember what year it was, six or eight years ago, we had a big Kona with bigger swells than that last one, not so much rain. And we actually had some water come over and get in some water damage on a couple of the lower units. So it's already starting to affect us. And I will email the photos I was talking about to everyone afterwards here. But the property, if you look at this property line.

I guess my question is... If it's already starting to affect you, at what point are you going to make plans for when this projection, whether it's earlier or later, occurs? Or like, I mean, is there...

Yeah we will probably have to make some plans and that's going to be part of the board's agenda here coming up pretty soon because I took on this role just recently a couple of years ago.

I'm sorry.

Somebody somebody was a long term president who did a lot of to the property. retired.

And then I guess I was wondering if you can clarify because you said you are the president of the HOA and the fees are special assessment fees as well as the HOA fees are hefty. How does that go into what you're seeing about the 3.2 if you don't have any plans like

they will be higher for sure. So currently I think $1,338 a month is there just to maintain the building, not considering any slur-exa issues or mitigation.

I guess the part I don't understand is you said you're going to replace copper pipes knowing that the entirety of your property is in the slur-exa.

Well, the cast iron, so what we did was we relined them. They put the relining in them, which gained us. We did that. know eight years ago or something which gives you another 20 or 30 years on that so i mean those are future things that will be have to be addressed as long as again you know in addition to the solar access stuff that obviously a little bit uh concern so so as it gets addressed but we're talking about the entirety of your property being over understood And so obviously Slorexa will come before that. We'll have to understand and deal with that before we ever get to a pipe project 20 years from now.

And is there any setup with the HOA or the fees that you are putting aside money for?

Currently, no.

Okay.

All right. So that will be in addition.

I mean, I guess if you could clarify for me, What would change in the way that you're operating if you continue what you're doing because you're asking for the change?

The complex would continue operating the same as it has within the Minnetonka list, right?

With no funds being put away for what you're telling us is... For the SolarX side of it?

Yeah. There's never been anything in this board that has looked at that in the past.

I'm not clear what is the advantage to this. You know, if you're not planning for the reason why that you're asking for the change... and nothing is set to change then what is the reason like um a local family 20 years a tourist family 20 years whatever the case is they're all people and and there's not a plan being made for the reason that you're asking us to change the zoning. So that's what I was hoping you could clarify.

Yeah. So I, like I said, recently took on this role and that's going to be one of my priorities is to get a plan in place for this and what that looks like in assessments or additional fees for the unit.

As the Chair said, we might recess and then this would go to the Planning Commission and then it would come back to us. Please keep us posted on the progress that you're making on any plans to address this specific situation of the SLRECSA that your testimony is based on.

I will do. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Thank you very much for your testimony.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Peg Kelly to be followed by Eve Hogan.

I'm a full-time resident.

I have a family and we live at Kihei Bay Vista. It's unusual that we're a full-time residence. Okay. He'll talk about the money because he's the treasurer. I'm the VP on the board. I wanted to talk about our issues at Kihei Bay Vista and why it's really unsafe and unsuitable for long-term renters as somebody that lives there full-time and has lived there for 15 years and owned the place for 25. We are right next to Kulani Hakuei Gulch facing the whale preserve and the flooding zone. I've lost eight motor vehicles. My family's lost eight motor vehicles in floods in the last 13 years. Do you mind lifting the mic? Sure. I've lost eight vehicles in the last 13 years due to flash flooding. I have a low mortgage because I bought in 2021. Okay.

Do I have the prompts? Can you guys hear me? Let me let me honestly let me double check because it was a little soft. Member Johnson could you hear online?

Not clear.

OK. Thank you very much. Thanks.

Sorry. I'm nervous so it's throwing me off my game. Is this part of my three minutes or. No. So yeah I just wanted to bring a unique perspective. I am on the board. I am trying to work with the new board. We need to build a wall really bad because of the digging that happened behind our unit where they dug out all that soil, the flooding was actually worse this time than it's ever been this last Kona low. And we're getting these Kona lows two and three times a year now. So yeah, I don't know that the place will be viable in 20 years from now, but I would like to say we've never had any ocean flooding and I've lived there a long time. It's fun to live there anyway. I have a son and a wife and We both worked for UH Maui College. She still does. I just retired for 15 years at UH. And it's unfortunate because our HOA has gone skyrocket because of the insurance problems and the flooding problems. And that's another way that it's affecting us. I can't afford to sell it. I can't afford a mortgage on Maui now. My mortgage is low. So I'm trapped living there with these floods. The last flood I had to hike out I just had a knee replaced and I had to hike out through the mud on crutches because we lost power for three days. So I've also, two or three floods ago, had to save one of my neighbors from drowning because she was physically handicapped and out by the smoking area and got trapped in thigh-high water where, because of her handicap being her legs, she wouldn't have made it. The dumpster came floating out right after we got to her and out to the road and that was the flood where the fire fighter unfortunately drowned as well. So even though I don't benefit currently from short term rentals the property value is going to tank if we don't keep them and we really do need to collect the money for sea level rise and to build a wall that's going to

to stop that water from getting in.

Like I said, I've lost eight cars. I'm sorry about that going over time, but I really wanted to give you that unique perspective as a local and a local family is trying to make it in one of these one bedroom, one bath, 600 something square foot. I mean, my son's this tall now and he's sleeping in the living room and it's not practical. Thank you for a local family. So.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Member Pelton, you have a clarifying question? No, you're okay. Thank you very much.

Okay.

I just wanted to ask if you could clarify about the wall that you'd like to build.

Yeah, we have a pro-wall board right now, which has been hard to get because 95% of the people that own there are investors who don't want to spend money. And, um, Unfortunately for me that has meant struggling to get them to see that this is really an urgent problem that has to get addressed. Thank you. Luckily our president now and all the board members are in favor of building that wall as soon as we possibly can to at least stop all the water from coming into our unit.

Couple couple of things I want to clarify about the wall was I thought I heard you say the wall is for the flooding not the sea level rise.

Yes. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. Because we've had, I mean, I'm saying we had eight or nine that we lost a car, but there were more floods in 13 years.

Do you happen to know the height and the cost of the wall that you're building or if like you need, you started the project?

Yeah, they're saying we need to build it at three feet or we have to go out to all the membership and get that 60% of them to approve of us building it. This is just anecdotal what I've heard.

So either three feet or if you want to go higher, you got to get it approved.

Yeah, and I believe it should be higher. We're right next to Kihei Bay Surf. So you the permitting process no no we haven't put out for a bid yet because we haven't so you wouldn't know the estimate because you don't know although our treasurer does have estimates he's he's spoken with people that would bid on it and he's going to speak at some point his name is andrew church okay he has uh visuals of the three cars stacked in the parking lot from the flood and thank you yeah thank you it's a wild ride over there thank you very much members

Go ahead, Member Sugimura.

Thank you. Thank you for testifying. So in the very beginning, can you identify your property?

Yeah, it's Kihei Bay Vista.

Oh, Bay Vista.

And it's right next to the bridge at Kalani-Hakoi and South Kihei Road.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you very much. Go ahead, Member Cook.

Thank you for your testimony. And my clarifying question is, I think I've met you over there and walked it.

Yeah.

And I'm familiar with it. And so I'm just... not that it needs to, but validating what you're saying. And I think that the flood mitigation that's happening, that wall and some of that will come into play with Public Works. I hope so.

I'm desperate, like I'm in a jam.

I'm looking for the board. Thank you for your testimony.

Yeah. Thank you so much for the.

Do you have a question, too?

Yes, thank you, Chair, and thank you for your testimony. I'm really sorry to hear that you've had to struggle with this flooding. But you did mention something, and I want to clarify this. You said you were having trouble with the insurance. So do you have flood insurance right now?

We do. We are having trouble with the insurance. It's the cost of the insurance. So our HOA has gone up to almost $1,200 a month. I'm retired from the college. I'm on an HGE ERS pension. So I'm just a state worker, and I used to be able to afford to live there, but with the insurance at $1,200 a month, I mean the HOA fees at $1,200 a month, and the special assessments we might have to get for the wall, I'm going to be priced out of my own house, even with a low mortgage. So it's a tough situation we're in.

So you have $1,200 a month for HOA fees. Is that insurance included in that HOA fee?

Yes, yes. And I also have private insurance. We're required to have private insurance for our units as well.

Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify. So each unit has to have its own flood insurance in addition to you paying HOA fees?

No, we have to have regular flood insurance. condo insurance, and then the flooding insurance is through the HOA.

Would you be willing to share with us how much you're paying for that private insurance?

I can't do it, but our treasurer is going to speak, and he can speak to the number if that's okay.

That's fine. It's just stacking up, and I really understand the dilemma you're in. Okay, those are my questions for now. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Kate.

Thank you very much. Thank you, everyone. I've been also told we have to be very careful on our questions during testimony. Okay, members, thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Eve Hogan to be followed by- Chair, I'm sorry.

I noticed Council Member Rollins-Fernandez's hand was up. Sorry.

Okay. Thanks, Member Johnson.

Sorry, I didn't see you. Member Rollins-Fernandez, do you have a clarifying question? I do. Thank you. Sorry.

I'm in my vehicle alone and pulled on the side of the road.

Thank you very much. Mahalo for your testimony.

I guess I was trying to understand, and if you could clarify for me, why... So in your testimony, your position is just that it's just an unsafe place to live, but you live there full time? Yeah. And that's why it should be rezoned to H3, H4?

I think that the flooding issue, it's not safe for families. It's not safe for anybody that's handicapped or needs to be – Assistance walking, I just had my knee replaced and had to hike out of there on crutches because the mud was two feet high and the power was out for three days. It's not a safe place for families. But you live there full time. Yes, I live there because I can't afford to move. Okay.

And others live there too?

I think one other person lives there full time. Everything else is transient.

I'm sorry? Everything else is transient?

All the other units are transient and have been grandfathered into that forever.

And so do the tourists that stay there, they don't sue for it being not safe during flooding?

Not so far, knock on wood. I mean, I think... What typically happens is that people lose their cars in our parking lot because it fills with mud and water and that gets into all the vehicles. I don't know if you've seen that picture of the three cars stacked up. That's my parking lot. So I've lost eight cars in that parking lot due to flooding. But the investor owners are less likely to be upset by that because most of the cars that get lost in that lot, except for mine, are rental cars. So they're insured in that rental car way. And most of the people are transient. So they might get their money back for renting the condo, but they're not getting any personal damage to their personal property besides the rental car. Does that make sense?

It sounds like a disaster. Mahalo. It is. It is a disaster area. Of course.

And our treasurer will show you large pictures of what it looks like and it'll make more sense.

Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Member Johnson, for alerting that. Aloha, Ms. Hogan.

Good morning. Am I supposed to use this or this or does it matter? Both?

I think that one is fine unless you're super tall and then you can use that one.

Okay. I'm not super tall. Okay. All right good morning my name is Eve Hogan and I'm testifying in favor of Resolution 26 129 on behalf of both Island Sands Resort and Ma'alaikai. I have submitted extensive information to you guys in my written testimony as have many of our owners who are trying not to speak today to respect your time. But I think I'm going to ditch a little bit of my planned talk to address some of the questions I just heard because one of the things when you're talking about it being an unsafe place to live in in a flood is that the tourists can leave. They can go somewhere else. They can go stay in a different complex or they can go home. If you have residential people living there and there's a flood, they don't have necessarily another place to go to. As far as the wall goes, I think everybody in all of Kihei and Wa'alaia want to build a wall to protect themselves from either floods coming down the mountain or water coming in. But what's not being addressed is the county's interference in that. You can plan until the cows come home to have a wall, but if you don't get permission to build it or repair it, you know, how do you plan for protecting the property? It's a very difficult thing. So then what is the concern with having residents there versus tourists? It's hugely special assessments. You want the tourists to pay for this or do you want the residents to pay for it? And the other one is generational wealth. Do you want your residents investing in excessive amounts of money in properties that they're going to get deemed uninhabitable and there's no generational wealth for their families? So I just wanted to throw that out there before I jump into all my other testimony, which is I'm just going to skip the beginning and just say one of the other special considerations that also arises besides the sea level rise excuse me the sea level rise issue and the sea air issue of constant corrosion and it repairs and special assessments in addition to that these are condominiums they are not apartments. Apartments are not owned individually. They have a single owner entity with equitable rent based on the size of the unit. So one owner, every unit's priced the same. Condominiums were all purchased separately and at different times. And owning them makes – or renting them would be making it really difficult to be equitable in the pricing because everybody's paid a different amount. Some bought their units 20 to 50 years ago and have no or little mortgage left and thus can live there, rent reasonably – or rent reasonably. And those that bought in the last 5 to 10 years would have to charge much more. So condominiums are not structured like apartments, and they really should never have been zoned apartments in the first place. And if the county were to mandate residential use or buy or subsidize these units for long-term occupants, the residential infrastructure in Ma'alaya would need immediate and extensive budgeting and management. Currently there are no markets, post office, police presence, banks, schools, school buses. There's one parking spot per unit and no additional parking for additional household drivers or visitors. and that would be needed for residential use. So yes, Ma'alaiakai and Island Sands Resort are both in the sea level rise exposure area. And for that alone, we support the lateral zoning change to H3, H4. However, as you can see, there are many, many reasons these complexes and others in Ma'alaiakai should be laterally zoned to H3, H4. I do not consider it an up zone.

Thank you very much. Clarifying question.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Hogan, for your testimony. My clarifying question was the part where you said everybody wants to build a wall, but the colony is interfering. And the part I wanted to clarify was It's your belief a wall would protect the property from sea level right?

Well okay so in some cases it will protect or prolong because it's been protecting it already but we are constantly facing erosion and the walls all along Malaya from what I hear I'm not on the board constantly need attention and repair. and i'm not and i'm not an expert on sea level rise and walls and mitigation of water but i know from a condo complex that i talked to in kihei they want to put up or reinforce their wall and they're in the special management area and the legal aspects are very very difficult for doing anything to protect them i understand that because um

a lot of the west side properties have walls that were pre i guess blnr's policy against walls um and it's not saving them because it creates these big sinkholes underneath behind the wall so i just wanted to clarify You're saying it will prolong but not address the issue.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- I'm no expert on this so I don't know what the solution is. I just know that it appears to be a continuous effort. And I also want to reiterate it's also see air exposure.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Yeah I'm off. Yeah thank you. The other question I had was regarding it's not clarifying so I'll save it to this question. Thank you. DIRECTOR RIVERA- All right. Thank you.

Anybody else. Go ahead. Sorry.

Thank you Chair. Good morning Ms. Hogan. Good to hear from you. I've heard your testimony several times on this topic and today surprised me because it was focused on Malaya. Do you own parcels in Malaya? Yes.

In Island Sands and Malaya Kai.

Oh OK. I didn't know that. How many short term rentals do you have?

I have two in Island Sands and one in Malaya Kai.

Three total?

Three total on the Minnetonka list. And I'm wondering, well, go ahead. If you want to ask clarifying questions, I want to as well.

Yeah, sure. That was surprising. I didn't know that you were advocating from all places over there.

Yeah. During COVID, I got cancer. My husband had a hip replacement, had AFib. I had cancer. We had all these health issues. We sold our businesses and we Asked the county if this was a legal use of these properties. We were told that, yes, it was by the planning director and changed the course of our income based on building that business to replace the ones we could no longer physically do.

Those those units you bought up, were they were they long term rental at the time where they were short term rentals at that time?

They were two of them were short term rental and one was a long term rental.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next individual up to testify is Linda Price-Ferry to be followed by Phil Mills.

My name is Linda Price-Berry. Good morning chair and council members. Before I begin I have provided copies of the sea level rise analysis comparing the three condominium complexes discussed today. I respectfully ask that these handouts be distributed to all council members as I testify. I along with others on the Waihuli board support the inclusion of sea level rise considerations in these resolutions. The analysis in the packet compares the two Kihei complexes included in the resolution with Waiohuli Beach Holly, and I'm going to refer to it as WBH. The maps and slides are taken directly from the State of Hawaii sea level rise viewer. It is important to note that these maps reflect only projected sea level rise. They do not include the impacts of high tides, king tides, storm surge, southerly swells, or other coastal flooding events. NOAA recommends that these factors be considered for planning and assessment purposes. I'm getting some feedback.

We're going to pause your time. That's annoying. I can't do that. Can we figure it out? Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry. Please continue.

Beautiful. Thank you. NOAA recommends that these factors be considered for planning and risk assessment purposes. If they were included they would demonstrate an even greater potential economic impact to WBH owners and renters. I would like to draw your attention to the conclusion of this assessment. There is little to no difference in the sea level rise inundation effects between the proposed Kihei complexes Kihei Bay surf in Kihei Bay Vista and WBH. In fact, under the 2.0 foot and 3.2 foot sea level rise scenarios, at least one of the proposed Kihei complexes experiences less inundation than WBH. Based on this analysis, there is compelling basis for treating WBH consistently with the two complexes. In fact, the potential economic risk to WBH owners and renters appears to be equal to or greater than that of the properties already included in the resolution. Therefore I respectfully request that Waiohuli Beach Holly be added to the resolution. Mahalo for your time and respect and consideration. Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you very much. Clarifying questions from Republican. Go ahead.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you Chair. Thank you Ms. Priceberry. We received a lot of papers. Oh is this is this the one she's referring to. Okay. We just received the paper. DIRECTOR RIVERA- I appreciate that. So I didn't have a chance to read it while you were testifying, but you mentioned three condo complexes. And then you mentioned WBHY Ohuli Beach Hale. Do you mind mentioning what the three were? Kihei Bay.

And there are three, Kihei Bay Vista and Kihei Bay Surf. And it's on the

document that we just got. Then the other clarifying question I had was, you mentioned the analysis of the sea level rise exposure area and about the planning and risk assessment purposes. Can you clarify what the planning and risk assessment that is being done for Wyo-Hooley Beach Holly currently.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Well I'm not currently on the board but I am very much aware and very active member of the complex as an owner. And I know firsthand that Wyo-Hooley Beach Holly has a very very active and engaged board that plans to address their position on this issue. So we're in the process of planning. However I can't speak for the board but I know firsthand.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Do you know if somebody from the board is going to testify today about the planning and risk assessment.

DIRECTOR MACKENZIE- No but I certainly can have someone from the board address your concerns and send them to the rest of the board today.

I think that would be great. Yeah. And if you can keep us updated, as I mentioned to Mr. Emmerich, it's a it's a process from here. It would go to the planning commission and back. So if you could continue to keep us updated on that process of what what is being planned for the risk and into the future. And then I'll read what she submitted and just keep us informed throughout the process on what is being planned. Absolutely.

Absolutely. And the word was inundated. Excuse me. Sometimes my nerves get up beyond me. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions? Oh, I'm sorry. Member Sugimura has a question for you, Ms. Price.

Ms. Price, so maybe this is a little obvious, but based upon all the research that you provided us, thank you.

Do you mind coming back to the mic so you can answer?

We haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but you're basically saying that because the other three properties are in 26129, and your property has whatever evidence that you're giving us that your property should be added.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Correct. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Correct. Thank you. Thank you for the question.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Mahalo. Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you very much. Next testifier please.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF- Chair the next individual signed up to testify is Phil Mills to be followed by Daniel Holz.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF- Sounds good.

SPEAKER 1 Hi there. Good afternoon Chair Uhlhajian's Vice Chair and members of the committee. Can everybody hear me OK.

We can, thank you.

All right, thank you. On behalf of the Board of Directors and the owners of Hale Onoloa, I want to say mahalo for your time today. We also want to extend our thanks for being added to this list for this resolution. We believe it to be accurate, and I will take a few minutes to explain why. Our complex is on the Minnetonka list and the TIG list. We strongly believe that we meet multiple levels of criteria for being considered for a zoning change to H3 or H4 as recommended by your TIG. I am providing testimony today to give input regarding the sea level rise and flood risk of our property. Our property not only sits within a designated FEMA flood zone, but also sits within a high risk sea level rise zone as defined on the government's own interactive sea level risk exposure area map, SLRXA. This testimony and corresponding attachments that I will be referencing were submitted prior to today's meeting. Hale'onoloa is within the sea level rise designation area. As outlined on the reports in the Department of Land and Natural Resources update of 11-21-25, the SLR XA map data depicts escalating hazard exposure with expected sea level rise for our community. The map data includes the output of three sea level rise hazard models that can be used to identify vulnerabilities two specific hazards one passive flooding so still water high tide flooding without consideration etc two annual high wave flooding so the waves crashing over the landward in present beach area three coastal erosion exposure to future land loss from coastal erosion those are the three components the three exposure areas can be viewed individually or combined as the multi-hazard slrxa The 3.2 foot projection of sea level rise is based on the sea level rise model for 2100 developed by the Hawaii Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Committee. In anticipation of today's hearing, maps pulled from the Department of Land and Resources interactive map using the 3.2 foot projections recommended for use in future planning by the county were provided to each member for their convenience to view during the testimony. You have each of the exhibits, I won't go through them. So photos were provided as well. And so we believe that Haleʻonoloa clearly falls within the state of Hawaii's area of high risk due to sea level rise as outlined in the 2017 and 2022 sea level rise vulnerability and adaptation reports. We are also within a FEMA designated flood zone, VE. This zone designation is also recognized by the state of Hawaii Department of Land and Resources. The further evidence to support the fact we are in a significant flood zone is the fact any lender lending on the property requires flood insurance to be purchased and maintained annually, something that unfortunately seems to go up significantly every year. Given that Haleo and Aloha is located within both of these hazard zones, we respectfully request that we be approved rezoning to H3H4 through resolutions by the county. Again, mahalo for your time.

Thank you members. Any clarifying questions? Member Palten followed by Member Johnson.

Thank you Mr. Mills. Thank you Chair. First clarifying question is you said multiple levels of criteria that you believe you meet. Can you clarify what those are?

One was the flooding. We are in a flood zone. Two, sea level rise. We do have a sea wall. And so we are in a zone that is considered hazardous from that perspective. And then the erosion, ground erosion, that was the third component I believe that was mentioned.

Thank you. And then you mentioned multi-hazard, escalating hazard exposure. Can you clarify what actions you're taking or what actions you have planned for when that hazard occurs? Because, you know, human life is human life.

Yes, thank you for that. Our property right now, we have a seawall, and so we are dealing with an engineering firm to make sure that the seawall is properly maintained. One of the things that we really like about the property, the seawall was built pre-statehood. And so the fact that it's still standing is pretty awesome because that means that the local who owned the property, who sold it to the complex, they built that seawall and it's still standing today. That's a – I don't know. Personally, I think that's a pretty significant – compliment to somebody's engineering feat prior to current codes, given the sea level rise and the waves crashing. So anyway, sorry.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So pretty cool. Anyway, sorry, chasing a rabbit. I just think it's a really cool feature to the property. So we do have an engineering firm that's looking at that in terms of how do we maintain the seawall? How do we protect the property because of the sea level rise? There are four units that sit pretty close to the water. And so we are, as a board, talking with the engineering firm how best to protect not just the seawall, It's a four-story building. It's CMU. It's a big complex. And so how do we protect that and the cottages? Sorry, CMU. It's concrete block.

Oh, CMU, like the letter C-M-U.

Yes, it's concrete block. Yeah, it's concrete block, steel beam fortified concrete block structure.

Okay, so you're just talking with the engineers to clarify how you're addressing the escalating hazard exposure, talking to your firm engineer, okay.

Yeah, we have a firm on island that's helping us, yes.

And as requested of the others, please keep us informed as this process progresses on any solutions that you're exploring.

Of course. Yeah. We have to go to the county for support, right? And to get approval. So yes, absolutely.

Yeah, but I don't think you have to come to us. So I'm asking if you could keep us, this particular body informed as we progress through the process. Because like I mentioned to the other folks, it'll go to planning commission, which would be the entity that you go for about your engineering solutions. And then it would come back to us. So throughout that process, I was asking if you could keep us informed about solutions proposed by your engineering firm.

That's a respectful yes.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you. Respectfully thank you.

DIRECTOR HAMPSON- Member Johnson did you also have clarifying questions.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Yes thank you Chair for my clarifying questions. I you know you mentioned twice in your testimony Mr. Mills and thank you for testifying that your preference would be H3 or H4. Of those two do you have a preference for of those two. FRED PODESTA. Can you explain the difference between the two for me. Please. Okay. Well, we'll get in those discussions when we get to that. But my understanding, and I think Director Annalis really can explain it better, but I think H4 is a bit more robust. You can do more with H4. But I can wait until they speak on it. I don't want to get into the discussions yet. I'm trying to do clarifying. So you don't seem to have a preference, or do you?

Until we find out more? Well, we presently operate 95 percent of our owners are on mainland. We do have owners who live full time on the premises, but the vast majority of them operate their units as short term vacation rentals. And that's essentially what the community is looking to continue doing is because of the cost of running that complex. It's it's expensive.

Thank you.

You said like 90% of your owners are off are living off island. I thought the whole ICONL report that said 70% of the owners were owner occupied in 2015. So since 2015 and now that's changed or is that different data?

That's a great question. My understanding is that that I don't believe that that's accurate.

I bought in 2015.

And so my wife and I – Okay, well, how about anecdotally?

Who did you buy it from?

I bought it from an association. The association was going bankrupt.

If that's a clarifying question, I've been told to clarify what he's telling me.

So we don't have to go there. That's fine, Mr. Mills.

I just want you guys are happy to continue this conversation offline.

But that's yeah, fair enough. If you want to talk to me offline, Mr. Johnson, I am happy to do so.

Okay, my last clarifying question is what you did say in regards to the flood insurance. And I guess for future testifiers, if you want to speak on this, that's a concern that I have is that you mentioned that your flood insurance keeps going up and up every year. Yeah. Talk about that. How much do you have a number?

I'd have to look at our financials. I want to say this year it's gone up like $12,000 to $15,000.

For the whole unit?

Yeah. For the complex, yes. As the board president, I'm speaking with relation to the complex. So yes, the flood insurance continues to rise every year as far as cost is concerned. So yeah, it's just been all the insurances. We did actually have a slight decrease this year on the general insurance, the fire insurance, if you will. But that's unusual. Last year, we had a pretty significant increase.

Okay. All right. Thanks for those clarifying responses. Thank you, Chair.

Of course. Thank you, Member Johnson. Before we take our next testifier, though, I would like to acknowledge Chair Lee has joined us. Sorry, I saw you walk in earlier, Ben.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next testifier, please.

The next testifier is Daniel Holes to be followed by Volker Johuk.

Hi everyone good morning chair and council members. My name is Daniel Holtz and I'm speaking on behalf of Waihuli Beach Hale. You just heard from my neighbor Linda Price Barry who presented an analysis of the impacts of sea level rise on the complex on Waihuli Beach Hale complex. The state of Hawaii sea level rise viewer shows flooding of parts of the complex for a two foot rise. and inundation of units for 3.2 foot rise. You have the packet that shows that. I'll also point out there's a PDF which we emailed to you. It's much nicer on the PDF. The images are much clearer. I was going to, the documents you received have some additional arguments for consideration, which I thought I would just very briefly summarize. So Wai'ahuli Beach Highway was explicitly built for transient accommodation. This is shown in the original preliminary declaration of horizontal property dated June 3rd, 1974. The text that I'm just reading verbatim, the purpose for which the apartments are intended and restricted as to use is residential by the unit owners or by transients who are renting or leasing said apartments. So this is from when the property was first built and the units were first sold. Furthermore, and you'll see this in your packet, this was amplified in the Declaration of Horizontal Property Regime, which is a document dated July 11, 1978, and which was formally approved by the state of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyance. There's like a seal. The apartments, again, verbatim, the apartments shall be occupied and used only as private dwellings by the respective owners thereof, and for no other purpose except that the apartments may also be rented for transient purposes. The owners of the respective apartments shall have the absolute right to lease such apartments subject to all provisions of this declaration. And again, you know, this is in your packet. We have the original copies of these documents and can provide them if that would be helpful. The complex has been continuously used for short-term transient accommodation since it was built. At present, 88% of the units are being used for transient accommodation, and there's a full accounting of that in your packet. The complex employs a full-time on-site manager, maintains daily groundskeeping, pool maintenance services, commercial laundry facility. There's a unit in the complex that used to be a front desk. It was built to be a front desk for a guest to check in. It's no longer used as a front desk because now there are electronic locks and guests can check in themselves, but it was just clearly intended to be used for transient purposes. So in conclusion, the combination of sea level rise and original intent, and we also have some arguments about affordability, all of these argue in favor of the amendment and in favor of inclusion of why a hooligan challenge... Humbly request your consideration. Thank you so much.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you very much. Members any clarifying questions. Member Poulton.

DIRECTOR POULTON Thank you Chair. Thank you Mr. Holtz. I wanted to clarify is this is the packet that you're referring to. MR.

Yes for Waibahuli Beach Halle yes.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- And I just wanted to clarify I wasn't clear so you're referring to these images here. MR. Yes that's right. DIRECTOR RIVERA- And I just I was wondering if you could clarify. I see that somebody drew in yellow and red. Can you clarify what the meaning of the yellow and the red is?

Yeah, so the yellow is the actual boundary of the full complex. Okay. And the red shows areas of the complex that will be here. I can't quite see it, but I think it's areas of the complex that will be here. Underwater, or I think there's an erosion part of that too. So this is just directly from the maps, but the shading is very unclear. So I would recommend looking at the PDF.

Or look at the sea rise viewer itself.

But it shows that parts of the complex are underwater at 3.2.

Okay, and then you said you're a neighbor to Miss Priceberry. You live there full-time?

No, I'm part-time. You know, I'm, yeah, so. And are you? I have one unit in the complex. Thank you. My mom also has a unit in the complex. And she lives on island full time, but is now in a retirement community. So she had to move out of the complex.

And so my clarifying question was, are you part of any of the solutions for, I mean, some of the sea level rise doesn't look like it'll hit the back parts of it. Is it like your unit is on the back part that's not going to be hit?

Or do you have solutions for when it happens? So first of all, what you're looking at is a comparison. So we put in some comparison properties. My unit is actually towards the front. So my unit would be completely underwater at 3.2. So I know the board is discussing what to do. There's some discussion, there's some burns in front and there are various things that are possible, but I'm not privy to the full board discussions.

So you're not aware yet. And then is this one is your property?

Yes, I think that's right.

And this red line is where? Sorry, I can't see it from here.

Or if there's a specific question, I think that is, is that the economic damage? uh which is um wild huli beach holly 3.2 sea level rise with three foot passive height oh that's right so this is where it would go up to is what you're seeing yeah so that that map shows the the whole shaded region all the way to the back there is underwater underwater thank you for a three foot rise so that's with 3.2 and this passive and and there it goes way past the back of the property. The whole property is underwater. That's just to show that actually the 3.2 that people are using is actually conservative.

Thank you. I guess similar to the other testifiers, if you can keep us posted as the process goes on as to what the solutions are that you're...

board is pursuing yes for sure yeah thank you we'll do that and as linda mentioned we'll try to get you a summary from the board today if we can okay but it's it's going to be a long process so um clear consistent communication would be appreciated thank you yes thank you thank you members any other clarifying questions

Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you. Next testifier please.

Chair the next individual is Volker Johak to be followed by Rebecca Krill.

Thank you very much. My name is Volker Johak. I'm a local resident. I'm also a small business owner and I'm the president of the board of directors for Kia Resort AOAO. Kia Resort is located at 777 South Kia Road. Very easy to remember. and the tax map key is 239001136. I'm testifying today to urgently request the key resource to be added to the Resolution 26-129. I noted that our immediate neighbors, Kia Bay Surf and Kia Bay Vista, who spoke up earlier, are already included in this resolution, and our property faces the exact same severe and environmental with our abilities, so we are next to them. I'm also here to speak with a very clear mandate from our community. We recently conducted an informal vote and an overwhelming 93.4% of all owners voted to authorize the board to pursue this transition. We are united in facing the harsh reality of the property's future, and the reality is dictated by the ocean. Under the 3.2 foot sea level rise scenario, The official PAC iOS mapping confirms that 80% of our resort falls directly within the coastal flood hazard zone. This encompasses all 64 of our residential units, leaving only the rear parking area unaffected, which then at one point needs to be reached by boat. Furthermore, the units closest to South Kia Road sit squarely within the sea level rise exposure area. Because of this extreme exposure, our property faces a fundamentally limited lifespan. To reflect this reality, our reserve study has included an operational horizon of only 20 more years, projecting functional close by 2046. So from a board perspective, we have reflected things in the reserve studies. Most HRAs are not doing this. We are reflecting this because we plan for the worst and hope for the best. And given this significantly shortened lifespan and the widespread passive flooding, which we experience in addition because we are trapped between two gulches, we face maintaining this property as permanent resident housing is simply not a safe or sustainable long-term strategy. To fully detail the risks and our proposed plan forward, we have put together a comprehensive 43-page justification for this rezoning which has been submitted to the committee. And the 43 pages are just the summary. We have about 150 pages on supporting documents. We respectfully ask that you recognize our 93.4% owner mandate and the undeniable environmental data by amending Resolution 26-129 to include Ki'erezoa.

Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Popton.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Yon. I wanted to clarify, you said 93.4% of the owners took a vote to address the extreme exposure and that planning-wise, you plan to close at 2046.

That's the plan? That's part of the vote as well, that 93.4%. voting to be very precise to answer your question very precisely we as board cannot just go in front of any committees or commission without a mandate we need to get a mandate first we got the mandate from the owners the 93.4 percent to pursue the action regarding rezoning to h3 h4 okay so so to clarify 93.4 percent of your board voted to go for rezoning not to close in 2046 correct So where did the close in 2040. This comes from the studies which have been provided like the PAC IOS and those studies have been reflected in our plans and also in the reserve study because we have to be very realistic on this particular topic.

Um, if I could clarify, did we receive the 43 pages and the hundreds of pages of studies? That's what you referenced, right?

So I'm referencing the 43 pages. I'm not giving you the hundred pages because it's additional information. You also put an executive summary, which is only three pages and I can hand out the executive summary, but I mailed, emailed all these documents to the committee or to the chairperson. Okay. And so you have, I think you have enough documentation. And we have spent a lot of time because we want to answer more questions than you can ask. Great. I love that.

So so there's no just the studies is what references the 2046 close date. Is there studies about like I just wanted to clarify, is it like you close and then you start? taking it down, you close and you regroup back in the parking lot, that's not going to be in the inundation or what?

No, no plans have made in this particular case, no detailed plans, but we have set an expectation that we need to reflect the harsh reality of the sea level rise and that the owners need to be aware of what's coming. Thank you. Plain and simple.

I guess similar to everyone else please keep us informed as you progress in what what you're how you're going to hit that 2046. Like what what the plans are. Thank you. Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you very much. Members any other clarifying questions. Thank you very much for your testimony.

DIRECTOR DEWOLF- Chair the next individual signed up to testify is Rebecca Krill to be followed by McKenna Woodward. DIRECTOR RANKIN.

Good morning Chair. Good morning council members. My name is Rebecca Krill. I am here to testify on Resolution 26129. I am general counsel for Kihei Park Shore Association the Association of apartment owners of Makani Sands and the Association of apartment owners of Polynesian Shores. And I am also to the extent I need more time going to testify on Resolution 26130 because I have a fair amount to cover. Um, I want to start off by just recognizing as a legislative body, um, you, we, we recognize and we defer to the broad discretion that you all have in, in exercising this legislative zoning authority. But I want to, I want to put out there today that that discretion is not absolute. When ordinances are enacted, there must be some rational relationship to the purpose that you're trying to accomplish. When you create zoning classifications, those classifications need to be reasonably related to the objectives that you're trying to accomplish. And to the extent you create any classifications, those should be applied consistently to similarly situated properties. And I hear a lot of testimony today where We, as the body of the community, is confused about what those classifications are. And specifically to 26129, I've submitted written testimony specific for that resolution on behalf of Kihei Park Shore Association and the AOAO Makani Sands. I'll use those two as examples, and I encourage you to look at the written testimony because it's quite persuasive. When you look at the Slorexa map and you take into account what was written in the resolution, which is the criteria that is stated as the basis for rezoning, is a 3.2-foot level sea rise based on the Hawaii Slorexa viewer. When we put our property into that viewer and our property is showing 100% inundation. For example, Makani Sands is located in between the four other Lahaina properties that are listed in Resolution 129. Kihei Parkshore is almost fully inundated in Kihei. The entire building is covered by the 3.2 foot level sea rise. When we look at Kihei Bay Vista, Kihei Bay Surf, solely on the basis of the criteria that is stated in the resolution, which is the 3.2 level sea rise, they are only very partially affected by the sea rise level. So to the extent that the council is going to broaden their consideration of other criteria, for example, we've heard a lot of discussion of flooding, flood hazard area, those are fundamentally different tools for planning purposes. The flood hazard area assessment tool is completely separate from SLRECSA. So we would ask, I'm gonna shift to 1.30. We would ask that the council deliberate on exactly what criteria is going to be used because, and now I'm speaking, you know, as my role as council, when I'm advising my boards, we have choices to make in terms of where they put their resources. Are they going to continue to try to get on one of these resolutions? If so, we are hoping that you can be consistent in the application of these resolutions. If not, The next step that I have to take with my clients is, okay, are we now going to try to do owner-initiated rezoning? That's a whole separate issue, and I've sent memos to some of you on that issue. The third is, do we litigate? And do we litigate on a constitutional basis, or do we litigate on inconsistency in application of what you're trying to do right now? So I would just encourage, and I'm happy to speak with any of you. I know I have spoken with some of you. Some of you haven't returned my emails, and that's okay. But I would encourage you to get stakeholders like people who are in my position. It doesn't have to be me. There are other general counsel attorneys out there that are trying to advocate on behalf of their clients. But because of the inconsistency of what's coming out in these resolutions, we would really like some guidance from you all. So with that, I do want to just end by saying all three of the properties that I am representing today, Kihei Park Shore, Makani Sands, and Polynesian Shores, are all affected by the SLRXA. And depending on the criteria that you come out with that allows more specificity, I will be following up with you to provide additional evidence as to why they should all be included in this SLRXA resolution. Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you very much. Members any clarifying questions from . Go ahead.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you Chair. Thank you Ms. Crowe and thank you for repeating which three properties you're representing. On the one two and three and three being litigating the inconsistency of consistency of application I just wanted to clarify like not a lawyer. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Right. DIRECTOR RIVERA- And that it potentially the Slorexa, the NOAA PAC IOOS maps are not fact. It's projection is your understanding as well. And so it may be safer based on the steps one, two, and three that you said, clarifying that we just go for number two for all the Slorexa situations, which would be because we would be basing our consistency of application on a projection that's not proven. And the way that I chose for West Maui was me going and looking and seeing like what could last for 10 or 20 years, which is not objective based on me watching the ocean for 20 years in my former career, that just saying we don't know Like this is a projection, but we don't know. So just let everyone owner initiate because we can't make a determination based on just the projection. We don't know what the fact is. Five, 10, who's going to, what property is going to last five, 10, 15, 20, 100, 2100 years. that the safer route for us would be to just allow people to own or initiate?

Well, let me be clear. I'm not giving legal advice to all of you. But I will say planning is inherently projective, right? You cannot plan without knowing the future. So it is rational to use a planning tool to make planning decisions. You can't make planning decisions by saying, well, I need to know the future. You cannot know the future, and that's the inherent nature of planning. So using an objective tool like the SLRXA projection is rational. It's reasonable. The consistency needs to come where if the council is going to say we are going to use the 3.2 level project, As the as the objective criterion for determining which properties should be council initiated rezoned, then all of the properties that are affected equally or similarly, depending on however you define that criterion, should be included in the resolution that is council initiated rezoned. That's consistent application of the law.

without that we know that the tool is already outdated by um what other jurisdictions are going i think to a higher um sea level rise by 2100 so knowing that this tool is outdated making decisions based on this tool you're talking about this lorexa tool yeah i think making decisions based on a stated criterion for example like 26 129 specifies

a 3.2 foot sea level rise as the objective criteria that is going to be used to determine which properties should be rezoned pursuant to council initiated rezoning. All of those properties that are equally affected should be included in this resolution.

And knowing that the tool we're using is outdated though.

The tool is not outdated. It is still a tool that is used in planning considerations. If the council wants to broaden the criteria that they are going to use, for example, we will use the Slorexa criteria, but we will also use the flood hazard assessment tool and we will use the 100, 200 foot setback or the hazard erosion line. Whatever that is, specify it in the resolution so that we as the community can give you what you want to show that our properties should be rezoned. Because if the resolution just says the only criterion that's being considered is a 3.2 foot level sea rise, and then you make decisions based on flood or erosion hazard line, then there's an inconsistency of what the stated purpose of the resolution is and the application of it. That's my point.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Member Sugimura.

Thank you, Ms. Krill, right? So can you provide me the address and the TMK for Kihei Park Shores?

I can provide you the address. I will email you the TMK. The address for Kihei Park Park Shore. I wish I had all of my clients' physical addresses memorized, but I do not. Just email it. The address for Kihei Park Shore is 2037 South Kihei Road. I do have written submissions for Kihei Park Shore that shows the Slorexa analysis. Okay. And so the three properties you're talking about is Makani Sands, Polynesian Shores,

And then Kihei Park Shores. Correct. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none. If not, thank you very much for your testimony. Nice to see you again. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is McKenna Woodward on teams to be followed by Andrew Church.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee. McKenna Woodward on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in respectful opposition to both resolutions 26-129 and 26-130. So if my time could please reflect that. These two resolutions would move another 498 apartment zone units toward permanent H3 and H4 hotel zoning as we've heard today. This comes shortly after resolutions 26-110 and 26-111 were sent to the Maui Planning Commission. Altogether, these measures place about 2,500 units on a path toward permanent hotel rezoning. That is more than one-third of the Bill 9 universe. In our previous testimony, we asked, but the answer remains unclear, what is the urgency to rezone these properties now? As we heard previously, the council has not established objective evidence-based criteria for determining which Bill 9 affected properties should be rezoned into H3 and H4. Instead, these resolutions appear to rely on broad categories such as sea level rise exposure, single ownership, and hotel-like operations. Those categories do not form a coherent zoning class. The current reason is circular. The resolutions assume that because certain properties have characteristics that may make them different from other apartment-zoned properties, the appropriate solution is hotel zoning. But the record has not shown why these characteristics justify that result. At most, they justify further review. They do not justify permanently converting hundreds of additional units into hotel districts. If sea level rise exposure is the reason these properties are being treated differently, the county should address that risk directly. The record should explain how erosion, flooding, infrastructure viability, emergency access, shoreline access, limits on expansion, and public cost will be handled. It should also address whether future shoreline hardening will be restricted or prohibited given its potential to worsen coastal erosion, narrow beaches, affect neighboring properties, and impact public trust resources. Further, Bill 9 has been in effect for less than eight months. The county's own data, as reflected in our written testimony, shows Bill 9 is already creating local housing opportunities. Of 101 affected properties sold after Bill 9 took effect, 25 have been purchased by local buyers for an average price of about $450,000. That alone should give the council pause. The county's own data shows that Bill 9 has already returned housing to local ownership. OHA is not claiming the same percentage will apply to every future sale. OHA is saying the council should not permanently close a housing pathway that is already beginning to work. The speculation here is assuming these properties cannot serve housing needs based on broad categories and undefined standards. One thing is for certain. If these properties are rezoned into H3 and H4, they will never convert to residential housing, which is why the ownership data matters. 85% of affected apartment zone TVR owners have out-of-state mailing addresses, meaning these resolutions, I'll finish up here, these resolutions would largely preserve valuable visitor accommodation entitlements for non-resident owners. Maui residents would continue to carry the housing burden. This matters deeply to OHA because housing affects whether Native Hawaiian Ohana can remain in Hawaii. County land use decisions that permanently remove potential homes from residential use require the strongest possible public interest justification and that showing has not been made here. So for these reasons OHA respectfully urges the committee to defer both resolutions. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

ELLIE WILSON- Thank you very much. Members Member Palten go ahead followed by Member Johnson.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you Ms. Woodward. Can can you clarify I I was paying attention but what was your role are you like general counsel for OHA. MS.

I'm a public policy advocate for OHA. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Oh okay.

So does that mean you're a lawyer. MS.

I am not a lawyer. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Oh okay okay. MS. I work under lawyers and with lawyers. I'm not a lawyer.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Okay. Sorry. Sorry about that. I wanted to clarify when you referred to 2500 units when we opened the meeting we received like a flurry big bunch of paperwork like amendment summary forms I think from Chair Lee, Member Cook and the chair of this committee. And did that was that included in your calculation of 2,500 units or was it just on the posted resolutions and not the amendment summary forms that we received this morning?

Sure. So that does not include the amendment summary forms. And to clarify the 2,500 units I was referring to was with respect to the previous resolutions that passed 26-110 and 26-111. The resolutions we're talking about today, 26129 and 26130, taken together would be about 498 apartment zone units. But again, that's not including the ASF, so that combined 2500 would actually be an underestimate.

Thank you. I understand you've been following it since probably Bill 9 time and then through the previous resolutions and these resolutions. And as an analyst that's interested in this, I imagine that you'll be continuing to follow it. When the information that we received this morning becomes posted, will you please... include that in your analysis and keep the communication clear and consistent and often as we go through this process.

Yes. Once that is posted we will follow up with the committee and provide the updated analysis.

Great. Sorry to assign you more work. I don't know if you want to include like you know how many timeshares, hotel units, all of that. 7,000 was Bill 9, 5,000 maybe lost. And then if we add them back into the whole perspective of visitor accommodations in the county of Maui, because you said you were a policy analyst, just to get a picture of how the effect would be on the visitor industry as a whole because there's you know resorts there's timeshares there's many different types of visitor accommodation where it seems there's super limited types of residential or limited residential so just not trying to assign you work but that'd be great thank you happy to council member thank you and i we have a couple more clarifying questions if you go ahead

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Woodward. So could you provide the 25 sales information? Not now, but I mean, if you could provide it to the panel so that we would kind of know where they are and have clarity on that. That's different information than what I've gotten from realtors, but I'd like to get clarification. And then also, is your testimony from like the board of OHOD, is OHOD the organization?

Sure, so I'll answer.

Advocating what you're saying?

Yeah, so I'll answer those questions separately. First, with respect to the ownership data, that is actually the county's own data, and that can be found, we linked it in our written testimony, which I believe has been posted online in e-comment. That was requested during the Bill 88 process. by one of the council members asked the mayor you know what the what the sale information was and so that was a communication to the council but it is linked both in our in our written testimony um and then also in the record for bill 88 and then separately yes i am testifying on behalf of the office of hawaiian affairs so we have been following this issue since as council member paulton correctly stated since bill 9 Um, so this issue was taken up before our board bill nine was taken up before our board. I believe that was back in November of 2025 and they voted to support. Um, and because in OHA's view, these resolutions in bill 88 are undermining the intent of bill nine by permanently re uh, removing over 30% of that bill nine universe from even having the possibility to, um, ever convert into residential. before it's had adequate time to take effect. That is the basis of our opposition for the resolutions and for Bill 88. But of course, Bill 88 passed.

Okay, well, thanks.

Thank you. Member Sugimura, did you have a question too?

I think she answered it.

Okay, your question was answered. Okay. Next testifier, please. And then I'm going to take a quick recess after the next testifier.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Andrew Church.

Hello. This is my assistant, my daughter, London.

Can I use this? Can I talk through this?

Hello? Is that better? I'm too tall for this microphone. This is my daughter, London. She's going to hold up my pictures, and I'm going to read while she holds up the pictures. So does that sound okay? Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Housing and Land Use Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Andy Church. I'm a small business owner, a realtor, a father, and a Maui resident of 27 years. I also serve on the Board of Directors for the Association of Apartment Owners of Kiai Bay Vista. I own unit B104, I manage unit D202, and I also own a unit, Kiai Bay Surf. First, I want to sincerely thank all of you for the tremendous amount of work that has gone into this process. I know this has not been easy, and I appreciate the thoughtful property-to-property approach the committee has taken. I'm here today in strong support of Resolution 26129 and respectfully ask that Kihei Bay Vista and Kihei Bay Surf remain included on the proposed H3 hotel district zoning. Kihei Bay Vista and Surf are exactly the type of properties this resolution was designed to address. Kihei Bay Vista is a 60-unit condominium that was originally developed and sold as a visitor accommodation property. For decades, it was lawfully operated as a short-term visitor accommodation, aligning its zoning and its original intended use simply reflects the reality of how the property already existed. In the written package that I sent you, we showed the history of the property. It was in 1985. It was zoned HM. In 1989, it was CPR'd. And it was originally managed by Outrigger Hotel and Resorts. It's all in a written package that was submitted by email. I won't go into that. But today, I'd like to focus on something equally as important. It's our location. K-Bay Vista and K-Bay Surf sit immediately adjacent to the mouth of the gulch. Now, London, if you can hang on. Sorry, we didn't practice this at home, so it's my fault. She's going to hand up that. Hold on. Hi, sweetie. There you go. Here's the gulch heading to the ocean. The catcher's mitt is Kihei Bay Surf and Kihei Bay Vista, right there. Now, sea level rise is coming up from the ocean. That is right. And the wall will only do so much. But the problem here is there is a beaver dam farm, which is a bridge built on top of a bridge on South Kihei Road, which you're all aware of. That bridge completely fills with debris, backs up the water, which comes directly into Kihei Bay Vista. All this here, within a year and a half to two years, I don't remember the exact time, it took about four months, the county came out and removed all the greenery that was there. It was kiawe, cane grass, everything was just growing there. It was completely removed, dug about 12 feet down, dump truck after dump truck after dump truck for months, cleared this whole area out. The storm at 25 or 2024, I don't remember exactly which, completely filled it with mud in about a four-hour period. So now we have nothing but unprotected water going straight into us and then off to the ocean here. And, of course, you have the ocean rise coming this way. So it is a major dual threat. It is a very dangerous area. Gosh, I'm already out. During the cone of storms – I've got a long way to go here. During the cone of storms, the flowing slopes of Haleakala converges. I'll just explain that. Unfortunately, it's not a future concern. The photographs that I brought today show it's already happened. North Key experience.

Can you take about 20 seconds and wrap up?

Yeah. I'll tell you what I'll do. I'm going to forget that. I'm going to skip real quickly here. The cleanup of March 26th for our condominium was $150,000. Okay. I did get an estimate on the wall. One I spent – I've only been on the board for two weeks. I was back taking care of my mother, who's 91. I just got back. I looked at the numbers, the budget. I'm a treasurer also. I have not looked at them in depth. But I did say I've been active about two days. I got a bid. It's $744,000. That is $12,000 per person, plus our $14,000 a year HOA fees. And the cleanup was another $150,000.

Thank you very much.

Can I show you the pictures?

We're going to have to wrap up because we only allow the three minutes. We can see if members have any clarifying questions.

I got all these great pictures here. And I got my daughter. Show them.

I know. She's adorable.

Thank you.

Do you have any clarifying questions, Member Cook? I saw your hand up earlier.

I'm very familiar with the property, and I think the pictures speak volumes. Do you want to see them? Please. You know what? Can you leave them here so that we can... Sure. As you talk, I'll show them. If you leave them here and you'll get them back, we would have the opportunity for a break and whatnot to look at them. I think the work you put into it is warranted. We can't do it right now. But if you're willing to leave it here with your name on it, We can look at it during a break, and your efforts will be... Acknowledged.

All right. Am I done?

Yes.

Sorry, I got off-tangent on the gulch there.

That's okay. Member Paulton does have more clarifying... Say goodbye, London.

Oh, sorry, not a clarifying question for Mr. Church, just a comment. Great job, London.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

No questions, though.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Members, we're going to take a... We'll just do a seven-minute recess until 10.50. We are now in recess. Welcome back to the HLU committee meeting. It is 10.58, a little bit past our recess time, but that's per usual with us. And we left in the middle of testimony, so staff, if we could please call the next testifier, please. Thank you.

TODD BANDUCCI- Chair the next individual signed up to testify is Toni Spence to be followed by Joe Ehrlman.

TONI SPENCE Well hello Chair and committee members. My name is Toni Spence. I've lived on Maui in Kihei for the last 46 years and I am an owner of a unit at Kihei Bay Surf and I initially came just to thank you. for putting Kihei Bay Surf onto Resolution 26129. I was so excited to be here to do that. And then I've just listened to all this great testimony. And I think I just want to encourage you to vote yes on this resolution. And then all this great testimony that we've heard, give that consideration as we move forward. I want to especially, I want to thank the chair for the I want to thank you all for the abundant amount of time that you spent on sorting through issues relating to Bill 9 and where we sit today. But I especially want to thank Chairwoman Hodgkins for the following through with the TIG as she said she would at the vote when Bill 9 passed. It's good to see someone who stands firm in their convictions takes the high road and gets the job done. Thank you for that. And I also want to say thank you to my personal representative for South Maui Tom Cook who many times has been the one lone voice representing the people and businesses of South Maui with his unwavering pleas to this committee and the council as a whole to the negative impact Bill 9 would have on our community. But want to thank you all. for all your work on everything. And would you please vote yes on Resolution 26-129 today. Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you very much. Members any clarifying. MEMBER JOHNSON. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Member Johnson sorry my computer decided to turn off. I cannot see. But Member Johnson please go ahead if you have any clarifying questions. Thank you.

MEMBER JOHNSON. Sure. Thank you Chair. Thank you for your testimony. You said you lived at Kihei Bay Surf.

But you know, I own a unit at Kihei Bay Surf. I live in Kihei.

OK, so this is the one unit that you're concerned with. Do you have any other units on the minutes playlist?

I do. How many? Oddly enough, I also own a unit at Waiohuli Beach Holly, which has gotten quite a bit of reference today.

OK, so you're OK with that unit that section, but this, the Key Bay surface is the one we're discussing that you're concerned about to be on the list.

It is the one that's on the list today. And my simple understanding of things, the TIG put it on exhibit two and that we're just looking at moving it from H1 and I'm sorry, A1 and A2 to H3 and H4. And thank you for that.

Okay. I just didn't know if you lived in that one or not, but thanks for clarifying. Thank you so much, Chair.

Of course. Thank you, Member Johnson. Thank you very much for your testimony and your appreciation. It goes a long way. Thank you. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Joe Ehrlman on Teams. Would the individual, Joe Ehrlman, please unmute your mic. It is your turn to testify.

Okay, perfect. Sorry about that. All right, wonderful. Aloha Chair Wu-Hajins, Council Member Cook, and members of the HLU Committee. My name is Joe Ehrlman, and I am the owner of Halikai-Okihe Unit 201, along with my wife. I've been a full-time resident in Maui for over 20 years. My wife is a local school teacher, and together we've raised our three children right here on the island. We're taxpayers, we're voters, and we're deeply invested in Maui's future. We purchased Unit 201 to invest in our home island and build a sustainable future for our family.

Pardon me.

We are not disconnected out-of-state investors. The decision you make directly impacts our family's livelihood. I'm testifying today regarding Resolution 26129 specifically. I am respectfully requesting that the committee amend the resolution today to add Halikayo Kihei to the Council-initiated Hotel 3, Hotel 4 zoning review. We understand from correspondence with Council Chair Lee's office that that the current resolution focuses on properties from the TIG-2 list and that the Halekai-Okihe was unfortunately not on the initial list. However, Chair's Lee office acknowledged that there are properties like ours that meet the exact same criteria and should be considered. Resolution 26-129 relies on the state of Hawaii's 3.2 foot sea level rise exposure area benchmark as the standard for the land use decisions. Based on this, you have correctly included our neighbors, Kihei Bay Vista and Kihei Bay Surf. When you apply the same exact state data to Halicayo Kihei, our property exhibits identical vulnerabilities, projected seawater encroachment into the building footprint and a loss of reliable emergency access. To address the topic of mitigation, the state's mapping methodology already accounts for the large natural sand dune fronting our property in a special management area. Even with this dune, the water still reaches our building and building a seawall is completely cost prohibitive for our small association of 50 owners. In fact, Holly Kyle Kihei is a true oceanfront property, whereas Kihei Bay Vista and Kihei Bay Surf are set back from the ocean. If the state's own planning maps project the future loss of the safe emergency access to the property, that property should not be forced to default to long-term residential housing without the exact same rigorous review granted to the others. Furthermore, Doing so is financially impossible for local residents because the extreme flood exposure. Individual private flood insurance for a unit is currently quoting $9,500 a year. Combined with the standard HO6 policy and the HOA dunes for the master policy, it costs a unit around $12,000 a year just to insure a 600 square foot condo. I respectfully ask Chair Roo Hodgins, Council Member Cook to propose the amendment today to add Holly to resolution 26129, granting us the same evaluation and identical situated properties. Thank you for your time, your consideration and your service.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, who's mic is on? Okay. Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions?

Go ahead. Thank you. What is your address?

Address, please. 1310 Hula Newly Road.

Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Omen. In the 3.2 sea level rise. I'm looking at the projection. It looks like the lower right corner. Is that where the buildings are Is the is your assertion that the and I don't know if you have any device on in the background that might be causing the echo when you turn on and off, but I'll finish talking so you can turn on but From what I'm looking at on the real property tax map, I don't see where the buildings are. So my clarifying question is the 3.2 dark red line hit the buildings on the property of Hale Okihe?

Of Hale Kai Okihe, yes, it does hit the property, the building itself.

And has your... And has your board started making plans for how to address that?

To my knowledge, there has been some conversations.

Thank you. If you can just please keep us informed on how those progress on what will be done.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none. Thank you. Oh, Member Johnson. I see you.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Ehrman, you mentioned something that several testimony testifiers have mentioned, and I'm going to try to clarify this. You know, we're discussing basically moving properties from apartment to hotel, allowing short-term rentals to continue. Did I understand you correctly that you said that these aren't good units for long-term rentals because of the flood, because of the , is that my understanding? Is that what you said?

Well, if that same criteria is being applied to other properties, when you apply that same criteria that have made the resolution 26129 that are on that, you apply that same criteria, our property falls into that, right? So apples to apples with that criteria, we're a match. And we're not included, so that's why I'm just respectfully asking to be considered included in that. The flood insurance would be a big thing. For private flood insurance, it's about $9,500 a year per unit. $9,500 a year per unit. Yes.

And your point is that I don't have

I don't have a point with the flood insurance. You could take that as you will with, that would be an expense to the property for a private owner here, right?

Right, so if that owner, I'm sorry. I'll mute myself. So if you're an owner of this unit and you rent it out short term, it's easy to pay that high flood insurance. Whereas if you're an owner of that unit and you rent out long term, then it's a little bit more of a burden on you guys to pay your flood insurance. Is that your point you're trying to make?

I'm not trying to make it. My point is that we should be considered with the same criteria that other properties were with 26129. You could take the, I'm just stating the fact of what the flood insurance is. So you could extrapolate whatever you want out of that in terms of is that affordable or not for somebody living here on a full-time basis.

All right. Thanks for that clarification. I really understand your point being apples to apples is your main point. Thank you, Chet.

Of course. Thank you very much. And thank you for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair the next individual signed up to testify is Rory Frampton. Rory Frampton.

Good morning council members and Chair Uhu Hodgins. I'm here representing Makai Sunset Inn and that's They're covered under Resolution 26-130. And we tried to get covered under Resolution 26-111, but the property was not listed on the Minnetonka list, even though if you look at the real property database, it's zone department, and they've been paying TBR taxes for the last 10 years, and I'm sure way before that, but then it only goes back 10 years. So because they were not listed on the Minnetonka list we were told that we had to have a separate resolution and that's why the resolution 130 was created. That's why we're here today. Unfortunately the fire the property was burnt in during a fire but the owners feel that they they really would like to rebuild. They'd like to have their opportunity to do TVR rentals, so they'd like the hotel zoning for their property. That basically was their right to use their property for the last 30 something years. And that's really the main request that we have was to honor the right to use the property for TVRs like they had been for a very long time. It's a shoreline property. It is subject to coastal hazards, but there is a seawall. There was an assessment of the seawall that they, so these, the property was owned by a Lahaina family for many years, and they decided they were going to sell it in around 2021. They contacted me, asked me, hey, does this property, it's a zoned apartment, can they legally do TBRs? I looked at the criteria in the law. It was black and white. They totally could use the property for TVR. So I told him, yes, you could. The people that bought it, the Chang family, it's a family owned operation, Andrew Chang and Andrew Chang Jr. They contracted me to do the same thing to say, hey, can we really use this for TVR? And I said, yes, it's black and white under the code on the apartment zone. You meet all the criteria. I said, but you better look at the seawall, make sure the seawall is intact and it's in good shape. They had an assessment done. They said the seawall is structurally sound although it does need some repairs and maintenance like most seawalls do but it had not been compromised. So they feel that with the repairs and ongoing maintenance of the seawall that the property would be protected and safe over the long term. But they ran the numbers after the fires they were earnestly thinking like how can we help lahaina they had employees that had to move to mainland and stuff uh they were sink they did ran the numbers on what it would cost to build and what they had paid for the property and what they had put into money to refurbish it and it wouldn't pencil out for a local family uh the long-term rental situation just wasn't really an option for them they looked at it seriously um so they're humbly asking that they um that they be included in the resolution well that resolution 130 be passed so that they could be included as a property that would be H3 or H4 zone.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Good timing. Member Palten clarifying questions. Go ahead.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Thank you Mr. Frampton. Thank you Chair. I got a number of clarifying questions. The first question is on. So your assertion is they purchased the property in 2021, but it had been doing short, the property itself had been doing short-term rental since like before 1989. That's my mistake, yes. Okay, just wanted to clarify that. The next clarification was, you mentioned that they've been paying property tax in the correct tax classification for as long as they've owned the property.

The new owners as well as the previous owners. If you look at the real property database, it goes back to 2016. And it was either, I think in 2016, it was hotel. And then after that, it was TVR, STRH or whatever it is.

And you mentioned that because you think that should be a criteria that they've been paying the correct property tax amount.

Well that was the criteria in the section that you guys removed with Bill 9. So under 1912.

Oh to be eligible that's part of the criteria.

Yeah.

Oh that they're paying the correct property tax.

Yeah it's that you be classified you've paid the taxes and that you were built prior to 1989. I think those were the main criteria under the section of the code that was removed by Bill 9. So that paragraph was in 1912 which was the apartment district zoning. And it said, you guys, basically the council codified the Minnetonka list by saying, if you meet these criteria, you're allowed to do short-term rentals in the apartment district. And that was the...

The correct property tax was a criteria. If they're not paying the correct property tax, then they're not eligible to lawfully do short-term rental?

It was one of the criteria under 1912, under that section of the code that was taken out. I believe that was... I believe that was, I see Mr. Nunekawa shaking his head, so.

Okay, okay. I believe you, I guess, if Mr. Nunekawa is shaking his head. Good to know. The other question is, is this your property in the 100% slur exa? It's, it says,

The 1411 or 14. There's two properties. So the there's three layers right for the slower X. Yeah.

This one is goes to Arcadia, California, Makai, Cam, LLC. That's the Chang family. Okay. Okay. Um, so like, I mean, I guess the clarifying question is, we're, we're, we're trying to figure out what to do with these properties in the slur X and asking them what is their plan for you know, 3.2 could potentially be a conservative estimate at these times. And it's not the slow, steady rise of the ocean that is necessarily the problem. It's those one-time catastrophic events of stacking like a new moon, king tide with a 10-foot south swell and a hurricane or something like that. You know, that's going to be like potentially catastrophic. And so this is a little bit different because we're, whereas the previous testifiers were saying like, we know this is coming and we're, we're like talking to folks about how to do it. But here we know this is coming and there's no threat to human life with nothing there. What, what, what, how, I don't even know how to ask the question, but it's, it's, It's concerning I guess like the other general counsel said that it's not it's a projection that we're basing our decisions on and the projection that we're basing decisions on does not look good where the whole property is inundated on a conservative estimate. potentially less than 80 years from now, because we're not talking about the slow, steady rise of the ocean. We're talking about those significant one-time catastrophic events that are caused by, you know, the worsening storms and effects that we're getting to see. Like they said, you know, the Kona low storms that happen two or three times a year, the hundred year storms that are happening every other year and things like that. So it doesn't, If they're making financial decisions based on their return on investment, I don't know that this is something that I can support.

Well, so you bring up good questions. Thank you. Do you have answers? Well, first, the issue of the hotel zoning, that's what we're talking about today. Should this property be considered hotel zoned? And the rebuilding is a second question in my mind. If you take away the right for hotel zoning, it drastically diminishes the property value, and it kind of is like a double slap in the face. You know, they had their structures burned, and then they say, oh, yeah, and that property, by the way, we're going to take away any right for you to do short-term rental.

Similar to all the rest of them, Spinnaker and whatnot as well.

Yeah. Yeah. But, you know, when you look at the three layers that are involved in the Sorexa, one of them is erosion, which if they maintain the seawall, they feel that they can mitigate the erosion.

The other is the... Based on, have they got expertise? Yes. Studies and stuff like that? Yes. And

but you know we'll in order to do the rebuild it's got it that's a matter that goes before the planning commission and they'll have to get an sma and a shoreline likely a shoreline setback variance and um that would all have to be vetted out through that process but they did they did retain a structural engineer and a coastal engineer and they said that with proper maintenance that the wall should uh remain intact and protect protect the property so um

Is there, to clarify, is there a possibility if they get the change in zoning that they may not be allowed to rebuild still? I mean, because it's not in our hands, right?

That's a possibility. You know, it has to go in front of the Planning Commission. But, you know, this is the first step. They want to maintain their right to use the property for TVR, short-term rental use. And the next step would be to go in and apply for the... the rebuild and and that that's a separate process you granting them the hotel zoning does not guarantee that they're aware of that and they have to but this is the first step that as i said it doesn't pencil out if they're going to rebuild just to do long-term rentals and so um you know they haven't once this process is concluded then they'll go forward and see if they they can come up they've done some preliminary designs um If they are assured that they can use the property for short-term rentals they would put more efforts into that and come forth to the Planning Commission with a proposal to rebuild. And it would be you know they're going to have to address potential inundation from high surf. They're going to have to address all that all those kind of things. They're going to have to have plans for their seawall and all that will be considered in front of the Maui Planning Commission.

I don't think I have any other clarifying questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead Member Cook.

Thank you for your testimony. This is very it's interesting. My clarifying question is basically the request is to acknowledge that it was that H3 and H4 is an appropriate use based on the previous use and the location and the situation and it isn't granting permission to build.

Correct.

And that's a whole other aspect. So our job right now is really just whether the H3 and H4 is appropriate for the piece of property. Correct. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, members. Any other clarifying questions? It looks like my computer is frozen. Okay. Member Johnson, followed by Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony. It was very interesting to hear the story behind that parcel. So the fact that they had employees that had to go to the mainland because there was no housing, it kind of supports my opinion on what we should do next. But the clarifying question was the seawall. Okay, so Post-fire, did you guys do the assessment or was it pre-fire? Because I'm curious if the fire caused any damage to your seawall. It was pre-fire. Can you, okay, well, I know the experts give that kind of expert opinion on the seawall before the fire, but after the fire, what did you guys think of it? Is it structurally intact still? I know you didn't do anything like with an engineer, but how did it take the fire out?

To be honest I have not been to the property post-fire. So I couldn't speak to that and I don't the owners are out of town right now so they were unavailable to attend virtually. And so I'm not I'm not able to give you that information.

DIRECTOR HERSEY- Okay. All right. That was that was my question and I appreciate that. Thank you Chair. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Thank you.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Of course. Thank you Member Johnson. Member Rollins-Fernandez go ahead. Mahalo, Chair.

I'm now, well, I'm at my private residence for Sunshine Law purposes, but I'm in my vehicle and I will exit my vehicle soon. And in both places, I am and will be alone. Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. You're welcome. Aloha, Mr. Frampton. Mahalo for your testimony. I, while driving, hands-free. I was trying my best to follow along. So clarifying... Did the planning department confirm your assessment that this property should have been included on the Minnetonka list?

I'm not sure if they did or not, but it was rather black and white, if you ask me, based on the criteria that was in the code prior to Bill 9. And that was that it was built prior, constructed prior to 1989, that they were paying their, it was classified as hotel resort by, or TVR by the Real Property Division, and that they were up to date on their G.E.T. and T.A.T. taxes. Those were the three main ones that I remember.

Okay. I don't, I don't think it's. the council that makes that determination, and I'm not there to see any of the planning representatives to give me any nonverbal affirmation, confirmations. So I'll just wait till deliberation to clarify that with them if they have a response to that question. Because if it's not on the Minnetonka list or part of that, that's one of the criteria in order to be zoned. H3 or H4, so if it's not that, then it can't be rezone that. And then my second question is, so you said that the prop there's, right now there's no structure on the property.

Correct.

Okay, okay.

And just to clarify, This council rather than relying on the Minnetonka list set a number of conditions in the apartment district zoning code prior to Bill 9 and it said because they knew the Minnetonka list was not accurate and anytime you see the Minnetonka list there's always a footnote that's a footnote that says do not rely on this as being the accurate you know exact list of properties that qualify for to continue short-term rentals in the apartment district and what the council did over a number of years they amended the ordinance a number of times but the latest amendment that they had in there listed criteria for which if you met those criteria you'd be allowed to do short-term rentals and it wasn't that one of the criteria was not that you were on the list. They took away the list because they knew the list might be faulty, and they established the criteria of being classified as TAT, paying the taxes, being built before 1989. So they codified that. And that's why, you know, I don't know why, this property was not on the Minnetonka list. If you go to the real property database for this property, their own database lists this property as apartment zoned and then it shows over 10 years of paying TAT taxes or I mean property taxes based on short term rental or hotel assessments. So under that basis they were allowed to do short term rentals on the property.

Okay. Yeah. Part of the policy of Bill 88 was to, you know, just restrict the properties that would be rezoned to H3, H4 to those that qualified under subsection G only. Because there are properties in the apartment district that you know, have complexes that would not qualify, that did not qualify under subsection G and therefore would not qualify for H3H4 zone. And so you brought up TAT. Did the property owner while conducting STR use PATAT and GET?

Absolutely. Okay.

All right. So that concludes my questions, Chair. Mahalo, Mr. Frampton.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I just want to, okay, before you leave, I just want to give a heads up that it's about 1030 and I do have about 15 minutes left. I'm sorry, 1130. My bad. Even though I paid to see, it's still rough. And so we do have 15 minutes left and I know we're still in the middle of testimony and most likely we will recess in the middle of testimony. So I just wanted to give everybody a heads up. Member Paulton, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Please go ahead.

No, no worries. Just following up on what Member Rawlings-Fernandez said MCTAT as well.

Yeah, whatever they needed to pay as in short-term rentals, they were paying it. Yeah, they were legit. Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you.

Chair, the next individual signed up to test.

One second, sorry. Yes.

So for you, I know you have to leave at 11.45, and we all, as parents, totally respect that. How many testifiers do we have left?

I think we have about 13 more.

13 more. And so we plan on resetting and continuing with testimony later.

Yeah, I will address that at the end. Maybe about 1140, I'll stop testimony and then we'll have a couple statements before I conclude the meeting. Thank you. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is James Lingford on Teams to be followed by Jackie Keith.

Aloha, beautiful souls. Thank you for discussing this today. A little bit of an intense discussion message to deliver today that i'd rather not but uh you know we're you folks are looking at overlay maps and projections um so when considering anything on the h3 and h4 there are other overlays and projections that other consoles you know as you guys know i write auditing software so other Municipalities they include. With the money that comes in, they include investigating things like cocaine and human trafficking. Those are also other overlays that you have to consider in this so. And I'm sorry to bring it up. But this is. This is the facts of having a $1.6 billion budget now. You can't just look at, oh my gosh, we're going to lose tax money. Yeah, well, there's other ways to make money. And there are other grants available to cover any money lost. As you guys know, I've written a bunch of them and gave you guys a lot. So When you look at these overlays and the things, money laundering. So I'm aware of investigations, formal investigations into the real estate folks on Maui and how potentially money laundering happens with these processes and when there are large swells of capital that comes in. So, and I mean, even names that are testifying lists that I'm aware of. So it's important for you folks to incorporate all of the aspects of the municipality, not just looking at it from the money perspective, because when you have lots of money, that increases crime and deaths. How many fentanyl deaths? I know of over 30 of them that happened that were never reported. Now, for folks that I know that died and they were reported falsely. Now, I'm a sober driver. You know, California's sober. So, like, by my doctor's orders. So, we need to consider these aspects of overlays. We cannot, you have to look at the social, at the effect of the aloha Look at how people are testifying. It's very rapid, and it's not rooted in anything other than I have abundance.

Thank you.

God bless you. Thank you for all the work you do.

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

Chair, the next individual signed up to testify is Jackie Keefe on Teams.

Aloha we can see you. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Aloha can you also hear me.

JOLYNN BERGE- Yes we can. Thank you. DIRECTOR RIVERA- Awesome. Mahalo. My name is Jackie Keefe and I am a resident of Lahaina who has worked supporting August 2023 wildfires survivors in various capacities for three years now. I am testifying this morning on both resolutions. I am in opposition to the resolutions being proposed here today and the proposed list of properties being looked at to be up zoned to H3 H4. One resolution both proposes to amend the South Kihei and West Maui community plans and a new bill to change zoning for two specific properties. The first at 10 Wallaka Street hasn't even been paying the STR taxes that it's legally obligated to. I expose, I oppose expanding or relying on exemption lists like the Slorexa list. We know the shoreline owners will continue to push for shoreline hardening. Instead of creating a patchwork of exceptions, the county should be looking at these areas comprehensively and even considering purchasing these properties where appropriate. Mackay Sunset is expected to have challenges with its rebuild because of their shoreline location. In my opinion, Mackay Sunset Inn is a perfect example of this. For shoreline parcels, There were prior discussions about ensuring public beach access, public parking, and even managed retreat conditions. But as the community warned would happen, none of that came to fruition. Given these unfulfilled promises, your votes should simply be no. These were meant to be residential, not commercial, and some of these units are among the most affordable condos on the market. Why would we convert them away from housing for residents? It is unfortunate that the floodgates opened and now more and more properties are seeking to be added to exemption lists and pleading their case to continue their STR operations. We regularly see shoreline properties choosing to double down on hardening their shoreline, and I want to specifically mahalo Councilmember Paulton for asking direct questions about planning for shoreline retreat. We are literally seeing buildings falling in the ocean because the political will has been non-existent to have these conversations, and that has been most of the response that we have heard today. I want to say that I feel for these property owners who purchased without knowing what was going to happen. It's not their fault that the county allowed for development in areas that they shouldn't have for decades. To a previous testifier's point, No, I don't want to see generational ohana investing in trying to fix what has been done wrong. That is what government is for. Our government should actively be working to do this. To hear owners of shoreline properties say we need to build a wall directly after hearing Councilmember Paulton ask questions about shoreline retreat is a jarring contrast. While some of these shoreline properties are referring to a wall to prevent flooding from the Mauka side, this happens because we eliminated our wetlands and destroyed our native forests. Property values will never recover if we continue to destroy our aina. And just a reminder, I am testifying on both items. Council member Cook, I'm sorry. I just said, OK, we'll start another three minutes. Thank you. Councilmember Cook began this meeting by sharing his excitement about the Kihei sinkholes being fixed. And while this is certainly something to celebrate, it also provides important context for this conversation. Maui County allowed for South Maui to be overdeveloped far too close to the ocean for decades. These sinkholes are a direct result of this mismanagement of our INAH. We cannot continue to overlook that because we are prioritizing personal profits. We must be having a conversation about shoreline retreat. We must center our place in these conversations. We hear threats of litigation because of inconsistent application of policies. And we came into this meeting today with another last minute list of properties that are asking to skirt the rules. Our community, who is deep inside of a housing crisis, deserves more respect and transparency than that. The responsible and ethical thing to do would be to look at each property individually to fully understand the reality of each property on the list, as Lahaina Strong did with each property on the Minnetonka list in preparation for the fight to pass Bill 9. The Planning Department is in support of a deeply researched process, and this is not that. We must not lose sight of the intent behind Bill 9. Its purpose was clear, to reclaim housing in our apartment zone districts during an ongoing housing emergency. These resolutions move us in the opposite direction by allowing continued short-term rental use in spaces that should be prioritized for local residents. To be clear, the community has always known that some properties should be up zoned, but we deserve for properties to be vetted individually, not haphazardly thrown together in an inconsistent way that opens the county up to legal liability. Meanwhile, our people are still without stable housing and many families remain displaced. With FEMA assistance set to end in early 2027, and that's just folks who are able to stay in the program until then, if you speak with anyone who works in these circles, you will see that more and more people are being pushed out of those places. Yes, I'm not saying that it's the way FEMA is doing it. It's just the way the system works is set up to push people out. and HIHP's Hale Ola Ie, Housing in Kihei, is to close at the end of this month. That is on the 31st. The urgency to prioritize long-term housing solutions is greater than ever. Please do not forget that this was about housing our community. This isn't about people's profits. and I respectfully urge you to stay aligned with the intent of Bill 9 and reject these resolutions. Mahalo for your continued commitment to listening to the voices of the people of this place and for your service.

Thank you very much. I do have a couple clarifying questions. I'm going to go with Member Cook and then Member Paulton.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss Keefe, for your testimony. Kind of my clarifying questions is, You mentioned that you think that it's not being thoughtfully done in depth by property. So I just want to correct that. My office has been working constantly and my staff, we have a lot of paper, a lot of information, have been meeting people, have been looking at properties and have been assessing them. Also working with the business community, people who both workers and owners reaching out to us about this isn't creating housing opportunities in Kihei, it's displacing people in Kihei. So I honor, respect and want for the intent of Bill 9 with the TIGS considerations to identify places that are appropriate for housing. the systematic going through. So I hope that your testimony, you will pause and reflect on the activities that are really happening because your testimony wasn't reflecting what's happening in my community. So.

So I'm not sure if you had a question in there, but I, I just am, I guess I'm curious if, if your office is going to every property, as we have seen with the work that was done in the lead up to bill nine and vetting, what can, what is someone considering a like hotel style property, right? We've, we've seen these properties on West Maui that have, shopping carts that have been stolen from grocery stores that are like parked on the property to for people to use and so I just think that it's it would be nice to know for for there to be a little more disclosure about what exactly it is that has gone into these things the disclosure is appropriate my office has a ton of information for anybody who want to look it's all being done diligently so

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you have a quick question?

Yeah, quick clarifying question. Where did you get the information that Hale Ola EA was closing at the end of this month?

DIRECTOR RIVERA- That's very well known information to those of us who have worked in the recovery space. The the HIHP program the Lahaina property the Kalaiola.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Because in my last discussion with Mr. Mitchell he said that they aren't planning on closing it and we pulled back the budget money for renovation. So I guess I just would ask that you watch the next meeting which for my colleagues. We will be going into executive session for a portion of it but it is an update also on the temp housing solution so I I would clarify.

DIRECTOR RIVERA- Can I just flag for you if that is if if if that is true. I'm very concerned about that because there is significant mold damage in that building that has not been handled by the folks that are property managing. So that's just a flag that I have. But literally everyone that we've brought things to has said like, well, they're all out by the end of the month. They're all out by the end of the month. And I literally just talked to a resident yesterday who said she has to be out by the end of the month. So if that's true, it hasn't gotten to them yet.

Okay. I'm not sure about the half to be out by the end of the month, but my understanding is it's not closing. So that might be the disconnect, but we'll try to clarify it in the next meeting.

Thank you. And you mean today? Yeah.

1.30. Yeah. Same place. Different teams link. And yeah, just for my colleagues, there will be executive session, not about that, about other things on the agenda.

Thank you very much for your testimony Ms. Keefe. Thank you members. It is 11 46 a.m. I do need to make my way to pick up my son from school. So I'm going to recess this meeting to August 19th. Yeah. Yes, Chair. 2026 at 9 a.m. Same Microsoft Teams link and connections we are using today with in-person viewing available. And we will be back at the chambers at that time. No, if all goes well, we're still here. Okay. We will be right back here at the planning conference room. Chambers will not be ready just yet. Again, I apologize for cutting this meeting 15 minutes short, but my son is... We wouldn't have finished we do have about a dozen testifiers still left to go plus some but I thank everybody for their time and this meeting is now in recess and it is 11 47 a.m. Thank you.