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

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. you Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Housing and Land Use Committee meeting of August 20, oh, 5th, but from August 5th, but now it's 2027. Please reconvene. It is 9.12 a.m. I am 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 with Committee Vice Chair Kaunoi Batongan. I heard Chair Lee say the morning greeting is bon dia. I hope I'm not butchering that, but maybe we'll go with Chair Lee and then I'll go to you so she can say it. Chair Lee.

Thank you, Chair. Bom dia. Bom dia. That's Portuguese for good morning. I'm home alone in my workspace, looking forward to your meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Bon dia.

Aloha and bon dia, Chair. And then staff, I am logged into the meeting. Can somebody enable my camera?

Thank you. Council Member Tom Cook, bon dia.

Bon dia. Aloha, good morning.

Aloha and good morning. Council Member Gabe Johnson is excused. Council Member Tamara Paulton, good morning and bon dia.

Aloha kakakiaka and bon dia kakou.

Thank you. Council Member Kiani Rollins-Fernandez and Council Member Shane Senenzi are both in, oh, I see Member Rollins-Fernandez. I was just about to say they're en route. But good morning and bon dia, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Aloha to Kahiaka Chair. You're correct, I am en route. I am in a public space at the Molokai Airport. My flight is at 9.25, so I will have my video off after the board.

and um thank you travel safely and we will see you soon council member shane sinensis in route and council member sugimura good morning bon dia good morning bon dia good morning everybody you don't have anyone with you you're alone in your workspace yeah

Yes, alone in my workspace, thank you.

Okay, thank you. From administration, we have with us today Deputy Planning Director, Ana Lillis, Director of Finance, Marcy Martin, County Real Property Tax Administrator, Kari Stockwell, Deputy Director of Public Works, Paul Barney, and Deputy Corporation Counsel, Nahulu Nunukawa. We also have with us our wonderful HRU Committee staff. Good morning, everyone. Please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. We only have one thing on the agenda, again for the third time. So we are discussing resolutions 26-129 and 26-130, which would refer to the Maui Planning Commission proposed bills to amend the Kihei Makena Community Plan and West Maui Community Plan and change to the zoning for certain apartment districts, properties in the H3 and H4, hotel districts to allow for continued TVR use. We are taking both items up together and we are still in oral testimony when we recess this meeting on August 19th. So we will continue with oral testimony now and we will pick up exactly where we left off. So staff, if you could please call the testifier after I read the whole testifier log. Testifiers wanting to provide testimony should sign up in the lobby, join on the online meeting via the 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 mywoodcounty.us box as 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 the name to the testifier list and the order the testifier sign up or raise their hands. For those on Teams, staff will lower your hand once your name is added. Staff will then call the name you logged in under 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 the name you prefer to be referred as or 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 the meeting. of your testimony or testimony is listed, limited to three minutes and if you're still testifying beyond that time, I will kindly ask you to complete your testimony. Once you're done testifying or you do not wish to testify, you can also view the meeting on Occoquo Channel 53 or Facebook Live or mollycounty.us backslash agendas. We will do our best to take up each person in an orderly fashion, and we will now call on testifiers wishing to testify on either of today's item. Since this is a reconvened meeting, if you have already testified on an item, either on August 5th or August 19th, you may not testify on that same item again. So staff, at this time, please call the next testifier.

Thank you, Chair. So we'll just go down the line first to see if the following people are here. First, we have Jade Moreno. Is Jade in the chamber? If not, then we'll go to Kai Nishiki. I don't see Kai Nishiki online or in the chamber, so we'll go to Tyler from Kahe'wai Media. Okay, if not, then we'll go to C. Rose Riley. If not, we'll go to Albert Perez. Next, we'll go to Travis Liggett, who I don't see. Then we have Jordan Hawker. Jordan Hawker is available. Oh, that's Council Member Rollins-Fernandez. Okay, then next we have signed up Lucien Denay. Okay, we don't see Lucien. Then next we have signed up Nicole Fox. And I do see Nicole Fox, so come on down.

Chair, can you hear me? I can hear you, but it's very soft. Okay.

Tyler Cahalvay is signed up.

Oh, Tyler Cahalvay signed up. I'm not too sure. Say that again? He signed on to the meeting. He just texted me.

Oh, okay. We do see a Tyler Sonnemaker. We can call him next.

Sounds great. Thank you. Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Okay, aloha mai kakou, good morning council members and mahalo for taking the time to hear our testimony. My name is Nicole Fox. I am here on behalf of myself as well as Halekai Okihe. I am an owner there. To give some context, Talekai o Kihei is a three-story oceanfront building that was built in 1969. It was Kihei's first condominium complex. 47 of our 59 units are 547 square feet, one-bedroom units, so not much larger than many of the hotels that are here in Maui. Our building sits directly on the shoreline of Kihei. There's no road that separates us from the ocean. no seawall, no meaningful land slope, and no real protection from sea level rise. Our building was actually included in the planning department's previous correspondence back in 2024 from Michelle McLean, placing us on a very short list of buildings that were going to be impacted by sea level rise. Also, according, of course, to Hawaii, state of Hawaii's own sea level rise viewer, 30% of our property is impacted by sea level rise. And if that wasn't enough risk, we are 100% in FEMA's special flood hazard area, Zone 8H. So that's the orange zone, yeah? Our property is similarly positioned to Kihei Sands and Kihei Bay Vista. So I'm coming to you today not to ask for any special exception, but just to ask that we be given the same consideration and treated with the same consistency that others that have already been put forth for hotel rezoning are being considered with. In 2024, our HOA fees went up 26% due to rising insurance costs. It went up again another 9% in 2026. As it stands now, our building is underinsured to the tune of at least $5 million, and that's for structural repairs alone. getting flood insurance is extremely challenging. Most of the time we get outright denied. And for the few providers who do not outright decline to provide coverage, they charge around $10,000 per year per unit. So that's more than half a million dollars a year, which locals would then have to bear to ensure that either our belongings are safe or live in the risk of losing what we have. So I just wanna make one thing clear, which is that I understand and I support the need for affordable long-term housing in Maui, 100%. But I also think that converting TVRs into workforce housing is really only viable if the properties themselves are suited for long-term housing. Given Hale Kaeo Kihei's proximity to the ocean, our major concerns over sea level rise and flood and serious affordability issues, this complex is not the right solution for Bill 9. And because it is not what Bill 9 set out to reclaim as workforce housing, I respectfully request that you include us on the hotel rezoning list. Mahalo.

Thank you, Ms. Fox. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Pulte.

Thank you, Chair, thank you, Ms. Fox. Clarifying, you said it's 30% of the property is set to be impacted.

Yes, using 3.2 sea level rise view.

So it's at the 3.2 level, it's impacted 30%. Correct. Do you have, I guess the clarification is putting you on the hotel list, how does that help your impaction?

It doesn't help with the impaction for us specifically, but what it does do is it protects other locals from being exposed to that same level of risk. So truthfully, I didn't realize that there are a tremendous amount of unforeseen costs that are associated with this building and specifically with any potential shoreline protections that we are allowed to do by the state of Hawaii. And had I been aware of the risks, I might not have made the same decisions. It was an investment that I made and it might not be a good one after all. It was supposed to be my home.

So it wasn't disclosed to you by your realtor?

It's not that it's not disclosed. It's that this is not my area of expertise and I didn't understand the risks. And I think that we as a building are addressing the risks as responsibly as we can. But I would... strongly urge the council, and I know you are already doing so, but to just think about what it means to place another local family in that same risk zone. Yeah?

Is there any talk about using seawalls to protect the property?

So we've spoken with several structural engineers as a building. Due to our unique positioning, we're between the shoreline and a road, and we have a narrow parcel. We're positioned horizontally, not very vertically, we're only three stories high, but horizontally along the shoreline. So what that means is that retreat is not an option, it's not a viable option because we don't have any space to move into, otherwise we're in the roads. which is just behind Times Square. It's a Zika marketplace. Just behind there. In terms of elevation, we're concrete, so what that does is that presents not only tremendous structural challenges, but it's also cost prohibitive to be able to lift an entire concrete 59-unit building. So really the only options that we have are seawalls or other shoreline protections, which I recognize come with a host of other challenges to ruin the shoreline in Hawaii. So we don't have a lot of options that are viable, but we are doing our best to mitigate the exposure that we do have.

And then you mentioned zone A H in your testimony. Did you flood during at all this year?

So we almost flooded, and what we did was we had two people working around the clock to clear our drains, clear our drains to make sure that we didn't actually get fully impacted. We did have water intrusion in a couple of units, but it was not a full flood. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other clarifying questions? Singh Nan, thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you so much.

And then we can go back to Tyler and then continue with the list. Thank you.

Okay. So, yeah, the next testifier will be Tyler Sonnemaker.

Aloha, Michael. Can everyone hear me okay?

We can. Thank you.

Yeah. Hello, everyone. I'm Tyler Sonnemaker. I'm a journalist with Kahewa Bay Media. And back when this was Bill 9 before this committee, we had done some in-depth reporting, talking with dozens of Maui community members and affordable housing experts. And I just wanted to kind of take a step back from the specifics of these resolutions and sort of remind both the public and this committee that before it was these two resolutions, it was Bill 9. And I can imagine that as policymakers, when you're multiple years into dealing with a policy like this or the set of policies around this issue, that it's easy to sort of forget the forest through the trees and that The original intention, as when we were reporting on it, we understood the intention of Bill 9 to be was to make housing more affordable for locals. And the logic behind that bill was pretty straightforward, which is that if Maui County creates these stronger incentives for long-term housing relative to short-term investment properties, that it will lead to these different benefits. So both environmental, but also economic, social, cultural, health, et cetera. So we have not gotten a chance to dig into these two resolutions specifically. But I just wanted to point out that by that logic, if passing Bill 9 was going to create these different benefits, that the more properties that get exempted from that policy, it would seem that that would create fewer and fewer benefits. So my first question from a journalistic standpoint in looking at this would be, is the sort of why is the county effectively potentially undermining its own work so if it passed this bill just a year ago that was supposed to create these benefits and it's now creating these different carve-outs why is it doing that and why is it not letting that policy play out and see what those impacts are so i think this is one question that i wanted to point out the second one is Just to share sort of a technique that I use as a journalist to evaluate a policy like this is to look at who's supporting this and sort of why now and what are their motivations for supporting it. And more importantly, are those motivations consistent across both other policy issues and over time? and what i saw from my observations and looking at the testifying testimony around bill 9 was that the folks who tended to be testifying in support of bill 9 had a range of concerns but it was largely around trying to make housing more affordable and that as you look back at their testimony from previous issues and previous policies it's consistent in both advocating for more affordable housing and in terms of advocating for more sustainable environmental policies And by the flip side, if you look at who tended to testify in opposition to Bill 9, they tended to be arguing in terms of their own personal financial situations. And so I think it's interesting when you look at who's showing up to testify today to look for exemptions for their specific properties. I tended to not see, and in talking with folks who have followed these issues for decades in some cases, did not see a consistent track record of those same testifiers showing up in other affordable housing or other environmental policies. So I just think it's an interesting thing that it tends to be framed in this specific context as a concern about the environment when sea level rise has been something that folks have been talking about for decades, and we haven't seen that same sort of testimony show up in those contexts. So just two questions I wanted to raise that as a journalist, this is how I might look at it. Mahalo.

Thank you. Members, Member Paltin, and if anybody else has any clarifying questions, please feel free to raise your hand.

I'm sorry, Mr. Sonnemaker, can you repeat the two questions that you said at the end?

Yeah, just to summarize, so the first one is sort of if the logic of Bill 9 was to create these benefits, why is the county now creating carve-outs that would reduce those benefits by that logic? So it's the question of why are those carve-outs being potentially created? And the second one is why are the testifiers who are testifying either in support of or opposition in opposition to these different resolutions, either consistently showing up on those issues outside of this context where it personally benefits or harms their personal situation. And so basically, what's the consistency of that testimony look like across issues and across time?

Got it. Thank you so much for repeating that.

Thank you, Member Palten. Member Cook, you have a question?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Sonnenmaker. My clarifying question for the statement of why this is being reviewed, like past Bill 9, and why is this being done. During Bill 9, did you follow the conversation that there was debate about the pros and cons of the benefits and the cost of implementing it?

Yes, we did.

So I would just, I think the answer to the question why is it being reviewed now, it isn't being undermined, it's being evaluated. And so that's just a perspective. You had asked why that is, why we're doing this now, and I think it's part of the ongoing conversation about the meeting the goals and objectives, of providing housing and the cost and the benefits to the community in doing so. So anyway, thank you very much for your testimony. Very comprehensive.

Thank you, Member Cook. Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier will be Jen Stadig on Teams to be followed by Jade Moreno. And Ms. Stedig, you're unmuted on our end.

I know. Okay, unmuted. Hi, folks. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, everyone, for taking me. This is a big journey we've been on.

One second. You're very soft. Okay, they turned you off. Okay, yeah.

Hi. Hi, folks. So, you know, I think I'm in opposition. I think I'm born and raised a Kihei girl, and I've been an RN. I did travel nursing off-island, and I came back. And I look right here, I can see a lot of... up living like places to live this is there i take my dog like we walk past it and so i think there's there's a the thing that these places aren't uh livable for local people is so silly and and to know all of our local people our plumbers and our electricians like i think um anyway so there's there's a way to to to do it where we local people can we we can do it and maybe we can buy a couple of them we don't know anyway thank you sir everybody appreciate I appreciate your time.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Jade Moreno to be followed by Albert Perez.

Good morning, everyone. Aloha chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Jade Moreno. I'm the principal researcher for Maui Housing Hui. I'm taking my full six minutes to testify on both resolutions 129 and 130 today. So apologies for the long windedness. I want to begin with the context that I hope this committee will keep front and center. As it considers these resolutions, Maui is confronting a housing crisis that has existed and grown for many years, as we all know. Maui Housing Hui's research indicates that the burden of housing costs on Maui residents has not improved in several years. That is the magnitude of the crisis within which these decisions are being made. This is not simply an abstract question of land use designation. Decisions about whether to preserve or convert apartment zone properties have real consequences for the number and types of housing opportunities available to local residents, and ultimately for whether people who live and work here have the opportunities to remain on Maui. Bill 9 was meant to confront that reality, as we all know, by creating an opportunity to increase the housing supply available to the people who live and work here. Whatever complexities arise in implementing the legislation, its underlying purpose is straightforward. Maui needs to preserve and restore housing opportunities for its residents. For that reason, I believe it is important not to evaluate these resolutions solely as decisions about individual properties, but collectively these decisions establish how the county will balance competing uses of extraordinarily limited resources. Maui's housing supply exists within a global real estate market, and local residents are competing for housing against buyers and investors with vastly different financial resources and motivations. County policy cannot eliminate those market pressures. It can, however, determine which uses our land use policies prioritize. Housing serves a purpose far more fundamental than its value as an investment or visitor accommodation. Stable housing is foundational to individual and community well-being, physical health, mental health, educational stability, economic security, recovery from substance use, family stability, disaster recovery. These are all made more difficult when people do not have access to a safe and stable home. Housing policy, therefore, cannot be separated from the broader health and stability of our community. Our research at Maui Housing Hui is informed not only by quantitative data, but by the experiences of the people most directly affected by Maui's housing conditions. Most recently, we have been conducting focus groups with wildfire survivors who were renters at the time of the fire, and we've been examining the barriers they have encountered in trying to return home and regain housing stability after the disaster. And that work is part of a broader commitment to ensuring that community voices and particularly the experiences of residents navigating housing instability are represented in the information we bring before policymakers like you today. That research enforces why decisions about housing supply cannot be considered only in terms of units, zoning classifications, and individual property interests. Behind those numbers are residents trying to find and maintain a place in the community. The testimony before this committee last week also demonstrated why H3 and H4 process deserves particularly careful scrutiny. Like Tom said, this is a conversation and an evaluation. There is clearly significant interest in using this process to preserve transient use at properties affected by Bill 9. That does not mean that every request is without merit. It does mean that the cumulative effect of these decisions truly matters. If these zoning changes become sufficiently broad that they substantially reduce the housing opportunities Bill 9 has the potential to create, then the county risks weakening the legislation before its impact can even be meaningfully evaluated. Bill 9 should ultimately be judged on whether it succeeds or fails as housing policy, not as results of a version of the policy substantially diminished through piecemeal zoning changes. I also believe it is important to distinguish between legitimate interests and individual property owners and the responsibility of county government. We've heard testimony from these owners who understandably want to protect the value and use of their investments. Those interests can and should be heard. but they are not identical to the public interest the county is responsible for protecting. The county's responsibility is broader. It must consider the basic needs of the people who live here, the long-term consequences of its land use decisions, and the cumulative impact those decisions will have on Maui's future. Safe and stable and affordable housing must be among those highest priorities. And judging from the campaign materials that regularly arrive in my mailbox, I think it is fair to say that members of this council are well aware that the access to stable and affordable housing is also a priority for the people they represent. want to be equally clear about what i'm not arguing i'm not suggesting that every property is identical or that every request before the county should receive an identical response maui housing hui supports thoughtful evidence-based land use decisions we recognize that individual properties may present complex legal operational environmental safety considerations in fact these questions raised through this process suggest that additional time and subject matter expert expertise should be considered to fully evaluate those considerations. It cannot become a blanket justification for moving apartment zone properties into hotel zoning permanently, particularly while so many Lahaina families remain displaced or in temporary housing, and residents across Maui continue to face extreme shortage of homes they can afford. Shoreline and sea level rise concerns also have been raised in connection with these properties and those concerns should be taken seriously. Erosion, flooding, all of that. They require careful planning and comprehensive legislative solutions. The county needs to be transparent and consistent in framework for addressing those risks. but changing property zoning to hotel does not by itself address those problems. Hotel zoning is not a shoreline management strategy. Thank you for considering these issues and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Member Sugimura, clarifying question.

Thank you for your work with Maui Housing Hui. So you did focus groups. And did your focus groups, as you were talking about the units for Bill 9, did they come up with any kind of parameters or feelings or facts that they may feel, I guess, supportive of Bill 9?

Yes. The overwhelming themes that are emerging as we review the data from the focus groups are the difficulty to find access to housing opportunities that are affordable. And when we go back to the intent of Bill 9, those two issues align very closely.

So your focus group people were well aware that the units had HOA fees, some special assessments, as well as whatever else for mortgage and insurance and everything. So they're well aware of all the expenses that are associated with some of these units? Yes.

Yes. And I would say the community at large is well aware of the challenges with some of these units. However, they do not supersede the number of challenges that these survivors are facing in their housing situations currently.

Thank you.

Thank you. Member Paltin, you have clarifying questions.

Thank you, Chair, thank you, Ms. Moreno. I had, I think, three clarifying questions. The first one, and I just wanted to clarify, if you didn't do it, I'm not implying anything, but when you said not every property should be treated identical, did you break down the properties at all on what you thought was potentially a good or potentially a not good, just clarifying.

Now he has and he hasn't, but I know Lahaina Strong has done a lot of legwork on the use of individual properties. And so I'm just trusting that there is also people like me doing legitimate research retrieval on those issues.

Okay, I just was checking. And then the other one that I wanted to clarify was when you talked about subject matter expertise, if you could clarify what type of expertise or what the person with that subject matter, like what would their, what is the- Their area of expertise, yeah.

So I would say that when we're talking about properties that have been mentioned in other testimonies today with their severe environmental challenges, we would wanna consult people that have expertise in those specific issues, as much as I appreciate that the community is filled with people with a variety of levels of expertise, we're not all equal in our determinations to environmental, I wouldn't speak as an expert on environmental issues.

And to clarify, I just wanted to clarify, like you're talking about folks like maybe Dr. Chip Fletcher with UH SOEST, but the Planning Commission, is like the jurisdiction for coastal zone management, is that a subject matter expertise type that you're referring to or more so like Dr. Fletcher?

Yeah, more so as an experts in the science. While planning is one factor, I would say that it is, when we look at the word expertise, I would hope we would consult people that that is their sole focus of knowledge.

Thank you, and then the last clarification I wanted to make was when you mentioned legislative solutions, to clarify, what are you referring to?

Well, I remember when we were doing the Bill 9 public testimonies, I remember Gabe Johnson saying, Councilmember Gabe Johnson saying something about sister legislation, and that's a really good way to describe it. You know, none of these pieces of legislation work well without one another. It's in fact why we're here today talking about, you know, pairing up legislative pieces together like a puzzle. As much as anybody wishes that the solution was a simple one, I think we all are well enough aware that it's very complex. And so we're going to need lots of pieces of legislation that address, at an expert level, individual problems and factors in the housing crisis. So that's really what I'm referring to.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Ms. Moreno. I really appreciate you clarifying my question. answering my clarifying questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anybody else have any clarifying questions? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Albert Perez.

Good morning, Chair Uhu-Hodgins and council members. I'm Albert Perez, I'm with Maui Tomorrow Foundation. It's nice to see you folks this morning. I'm testifying on both rezos, but I'll be pretty concise. So Maui Tomorrow is opposed to these resolutions. First topic I wanna talk about is regards exempting units in this Larexa. So the H3 and H4 zoning will make the land more valuable. The ability to do short-term rentals will give these owners more cash flow, and then they'll be more likely to be able to afford to try to do shoreline hardening. This is the opposite of what we're trying to do. It runs counter to county and state coastal zone management policy, and buildings in this Larexa should be removed, not given a financial lifeline that will result in the loss of our beaches. Number two, I know people who used to live in these apartment districts, which were zoned that way so that hotel workers could live nearby long term. I just want to point out that over the years, I've heard several former residents of these units say that as more units started being rented short term, the STR owners started voting to raise the HOA fees to pay for amenities that appeal to short term renters. And then in turn, the property values went up and the units became less affordable for the remaining residents. So let's stop feeding that cycle and start moving it back in the direction that supports Maui residents. Please stop undermining Bill 9 and let's increase the supply of long-term housing as much as possible. And finally, Let's remember that one argument that was made in favor of reducing affordable housing at Wailea 670 was that additions to the long-term housing supply, even at higher price points, would lower the overall price of housing and keep wealthy people from buying up the houses that local residents can afford. So I don't agree with that logic, but I want to point out that current arguments that local residents cannot afford these Minnetonka units are inconsistent with that argument that was made in favor of Wailea 670. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Poulton.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Perez. I just wanted to clarify, you did say that you were testifying on both resolutions. Yeah. Was that the testimony on both resolutions that you just said?

Yes. Oh. I don't think that any exceptions should be made for additional units.

Okay, then I guess I wanted to clarify what you said about financial lifeline in terms of resolution 26-130, where the... the property was on the shoreline, but it was completely burnt down. Like, how did you, like, what would be the financial lifeline? Because it doesn't exist right now. And then, I mean, if it can be rebuilt, it can be rebuilt as housing, or it can be rebuilt as TBR. If it gets this... or whatever you call it, H3, H4. So I guess I just feel the financial lifeline comment doesn't apply to that one. And then I don't feel like 10 Valaca is even eligible because they haven't been paying the property tax. But just clarifying that to your testimony, because you said you were testifying on both Rezos.

Yeah, sorry. So I'm speaking more in general and yeah, I wasn't referring to places that have been burned down. So it's just in general if places are going to be I mean, I look at like the resorts right Kaanapali is trying to do this beach nourishment project and they have lots of cash to do it. And even Waikiki they keep redoing beach nourishment because they have the cash flow. and it's worth it to them. So it just doesn't, it affords them the ability to resist the need to get off of the shoreline as it retreats. So that's more in general, and I'm sorry, I wasn't speaking in specific about particular properties that had burned down.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Thank you, Member Cook.

Thank you, Mr. Perez. Thanks for coming and testifying today. My clarifying question is relating to the people being able to generate money from the TBRs. What is your... response to the county being able to utilize the increased tax revenue, the sustained and increased tax revenue to utilize for the community, for the infrastructure that we need to do for many of the community things that like utilizing those funds for the benefit for housing, flood mitigation, et cetera.

Well, I think that was an issue that was discussed during bill nine. And I think it's not something that I'm particularly concerned about and we need to preserve our beaches. And so these places that are on the beach that are gonna be able to defend against the progression of the public trust beaches, that's running counter to our coastal zone management policy So I don't know, I don't see it as a very efficient way of providing revenue for affordable housing. And I feel like on balance, they are costing the county more than we're getting through the revenue. And if necessary, we need to adjust our spending to be more consistent with the revenue that we get without them. Thank you for your answer.

Thank you very much. Members, any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, next testifier, please.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Travis Liggett, and we just want to clarify that Mr. Liggett has already testified on Resolution 26-130, so if you'd like to testify on 26-129 or other way around.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Council. Good morning, Chair. I hope you're all sincerely doing well. I must have got the memo that white is the color of the day today. But yeah, I'm narrowly testifying about the other bill, which I believe includes units in Lahaina. And technically, any unit that discharges into the facility there is discharging into a facility that is non-compliant with NPDES requirements. They're currently in non-compliance. And to take a step out, so yeah, if you pass this bill, you're sending out a legal signal, like an artifact, that the people of Maui and our elected officials don't really care about that decision. And then also when our corporation counsel, sorry, emotional support animal, this is Kyronic, but yeah, if you also then fight the Supreme Court decision with our tax dollars with lawyers, that's a double gift to the oil industry. which has known for decades, if not half a century, about this real thing called global warming. And now we have a super El Nino. It's just beginning. And so then to additionally count in the wildfire tragedy, which can also be attributed to that, and then to also narrowly bend these considerations in the spreadsheets of STR owners, bless their hearts, were ignoring the fact that the last time a superaligno of this scale happened, something like greater than 5% of the global population perished because of widespread crop failures. And I don't hear anyone talking about that, just like I don't remember anyone talking about wildfire risk to speak of. So I just think this is not a good use of time. We do not need, in this day and age, to be giving the fossil fuel industry wins left and right. And it's really not fun to think that way, but we have to. We do not operate in a vacuum. These things matter. Small legal artifacts and talking points for future lawyers to potentially fight the NPDES requirements for things like fracking. It's all connected. And if we operate in a vacuum like this, and also the pathogen risk, I heard someone within the STR say they dealt with cancer. And just last night, I popped into the speed bump meeting. And the gentleman said, you know, these speed bumps are spreading like cancer. And the lovely communications director said, I take offense to that. I dealt with malignancy. And so I would ask, has she swam in Ma'alea or Kihei on the North Shore? Because infection risk leads to malignancy risk. And these things have to be considered at a systems level. Because if we're just looking at the spreadsheets of an STR owner, we're going to miss the 5% of the global population perishing. because even if we have boats it's not going to count much if there's nothing to put on them so i really hope that you can table this and if we pass these i will assume i i deduce that um yeah it's your families at risk too so i really want you to think about that it's not just spreadsheets it's your families at risk thank you very much it's not legally defensible

to rezone something that's not compliant with wastewater permits.

I'm sorry, I thought a bell was one minute more and I apologize.

No, it's not. But thank you very much. Our members do not have any clarifying questions. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, have a great day.

You too. Next testifier, please.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Lucienne Dene on Teams.

Aloha, Lucien.

Aloha, I think I'm unmuted. All right, very good. I'm not going to do my picture because the bandwidth is crazy here. Well, thank you for this opportunity to testify and thank you for the long consideration this committee and the consul has given this topic. I'm testifying today on behalf of the Sierra Club Maui group and We share some of the concerns that have been expressed here. First of all, this process is not one size fits all. And we know that the council staff has done some due diligence. We know the mayor's staff has done some due diligence. We know that there are community groups that have done due diligence. So the question is, how can we get it right? How can we make sure that if we're considering properties in the sea level rise area, that we are not creating a situation as Mr. Perez referred to where we're simply giving a lot more money to keep armoring the shoreline. So are there properties that basically they've armored the shoreline all they're gonna do, but they're still probably at risk just because of factors outside their control. None of us do control what's happening with the ocean and with the weather. And should those properties just be given, you're okay in your lifetime, but if you have to do anything to defend yourself really you need to let go of this property and uh we need to have mechanisms to buy uh out to have shoreline retreat does any of that built into this consideration or are we basically just signing a kind of a yeah continue creating the largest income stream possible um for many outside investors because these properties are vulnerable, but we're not going to address how to deal with that vulnerability. We're just going to address your hardship. So I'm not clear that that is being done in this bill. If it is, my apologies. You put more thought into it than I'm aware of. But I just want to say that our situation with housing here, if there are units that are in a position where they will be here in the next 30, 40 years, and they could in some way be available for our local people, those units should not be automatically given the hotel zoning because we really do need them. even if we need them on a shorter-term basis. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you very much. Any clarifying questions? I see Member Palten's hand is up. Member Palten.

Thank you, Ms. Denny, and thank you for clarifying and testifying on behalf of the Sierra Club. I had a couple of clarifications. The first one was that you said about if there's any addressing of the shoreline armoring rather than just allowing for more money. Is that anything the Sierra Club has spoken that they would be supportive of like a condition of the zoning would be that there would be no shoreline armoring?

I think at the very least there needs to be that put in because I mean, this is the reality.

Like no further shoreline armoring?

I would go so far as to ask these properties, especially in very vulnerable areas, to have some sort of retreat plan if possible. It may not be possible, but let's face it, the future has to be about things that we now think of as impossible, because impossible things are happening that we didn't imagine.

The other clarification I wanted to make was when you said 30 to 40 years of life in the building and we're, we're utilizing the Slorexa Sea Level Rise Viewer as a planning tool, even though like I think the state or city and county said it's a little outdated. My understanding is by that tool, the sea level rise of one foot is 2050 and the full 3.2 is 2100. So if we're going by that as a tool, anyone that's going for the full 3.2, it's 74 years out if we're just taking that. So then when you said 30 to 40 years, Is that in utilizing the tool as it was meant to be utilized? No.

no no it's not about the sea level rise tool it's about many of these buildings are older buildings so how much more you know serviceable life do they have i mean my brother owns an old apartment building built in the 1970s and uh you know it's constant this and that you have to do to just keep passing inspections and make sure it doesn't you know succumb in earthquakes or succumb in storms Yeah, there's a lot of maintenance in older buildings and after a certain point, you know, the ownership makes decisions like is it cheaper to keep patching it up or to try to create something new.

Okay, so to clarify, you're not talking about the sea level rise tool, you're talking about usable life?

No, I'm just talking about the, you know, some of these buildings are 40, 50 years old already.

How are you saying that we should determine that?

I am not. I'm leaving that, you know, I understand that you're using the best tools that you have. I just did that as a colloquial offering that, you know, I'm just kind of a practical person. I have a 50-year-old property that I'm maintaining, so I kind of know what it takes, and yeah.

Thank you. Thanks.

Yeah, okay. Yeah, so thanks for asking.

Thank you very much. Members, any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you. Next testifier, please.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Paul Carter here in the Council Chamber.

Aloha kākou. I'm Paul Carter. I live Wahe'e. I moved to Maui full-time 1986, came here first 1976. So I've watched the changes that have happened here over those years. Unfortunately, I can say moving from California, it reminds me of why I left California, watching the degradation of the seashores, of the quality of life. just people surrendering to the, what they consider the inevitability of, well, capitalism, business is business, and you can make more money by doing this. Oh, by the way, I'm testifying on both resolutions, so I'm gonna try and finish before six minutes, but I just wanna mention that. So it seems like we all agree that, We don't want that to happen here. We don't want it to go further. It's already happening here. At some point, we have to just really stop and turn around, like a few of the testifiers have said. And legislation, county legislation, state legislation, should be focused towards that, yeah? It shouldn't be focused towards individual situations. Individual situations should be taken care of individually. I don't know if you're aware, but like Airbnb, When it began, its whole purpose was to help people. Well, probably not its whole purpose, but its stated purpose and intention was to help people who were having trouble continuing to afford to make the payments on the house they lived in, to make those payments by renting out a room in their house or a room on their property or a little place, yeah? And that was like, yeah, wonderful idea. That's what we want. That's what we're all trying to work for here. And then it became taken over by something else, where now it's almost none of the listings are by people who live in those things. It's investment, it's making money. Capitalism took over. But that's not our intention. I don't hear that being the intention of anybody here. There was a testifier and there's been some testifiers in that situation where they live in their unit at least part time, sometimes they have to travel for work and do this. And they're then renting out the place short term like that allows them to do that. That should be an individual exception to any of these units we're talking about, that that can be then applied for individually at the county. If the county needs to hire a few more people, I'm all for that to handle these exceptions, because they're gonna be a number of them. So my encouragement, this legislation should not even be up for consideration because it does not, it's trying to deal with individual situations and trying to help individual people and that's not what this should be doing. That's not what legislation should be doing. Legislation should be focused on what is going to, the county is responsible for. And for example, these shoreline considerations, which are very strong, yeah? And it's not just here in Hawaii, it's many places, The truth is we've made mistakes. We've built in places we should not have built of. Not just for concern about climate change and rising sea levels, but just building at shorelines, especially higher buildings, affects the whole shoreline. Changes the beaches, the sand coming, all these things. And it's just not right. Not to mention limiting access to the general public, which we all say we want. So at some point we have to again say this was wrong. And part of it was the county's mistake. Yeah, agreeing to do things or allow building that shouldn't have been allowed. It's gonna be expensive, yes. And the county can take some responsibility for that. Hopefully the state will too, yeah. But many of these buildings need to be stopped, need to be taken down. It's painful. But it can be done. It's been done before. And at some point, we have to move in that direction, or we're going to really make things just worse and worse and worse. In regards to the property taxes and all the income from these STRs and VTRs, and again, we have to look at what's really happened in the last 30 years. And that money has not improved the situation of affordable housing. Part of the reason is because by the time any affordable housing has been built, The prices then that are, it's no longer affordable. And the incomes of people here have been so stagnant and so poor, people working more than two jobs in families. Many families, they have three, four people working and still cannot afford to rent even a place adequate, let alone buy something. So you can't, this kinds of legislation is going to increase property values, as everyone says. Everyone knows that, including the people who own them, right? That was presented during Bill 9. Remember that woman who's saying she owns, I remember five or so, and she goes, I tried to put mine on for sale now, and I couldn't get the price I asked for. I dropped to 200,000, still couldn't, so I gotta take it off the market, just because Bill 9 was being considered.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I hope you will listen.

Members, I see Member Cook has a clarifying question for you. Sorry, can you please come back? Does anybody else have any clarifying questions? Okay, Member Cook, go ahead.

Thank you for your testimony, very comprehensive. My clarifying question, I hear what you say about how we're going to create some permanence affordability and then the tax issue. My question is, if these taxes are used for the county to buy property, very low lease payments, so that we could build new homes, and if a very conscious, planned mechanism to utilize the tax dollars to create the long-term housing, If that manifested, do you think that would be potentially worth it?

Again, I know Lucienne, who's a friend of mine, said, The impossible is possible. But I think we also have to be realists and look at the history of what's happened. And that just hasn't happened. It was the idea. It's a great idea. But in actuality, in reality, if you look at last year's, it hasn't happened. And what has happened absolutely is by increasing these numbers of SDR VTRs, Their property values have gone up and up and up. The price to purchase anything like that has gone up and up, and not just of those, but of housing overall. That's the problem. It affects everything. So it's like, what do they say? Cutting off the left hand to pay the right hand? I forget the expression. Something about paying the piper. That's what that solution is. Okay, yeah, you're getting some extra taxes, but at the same time, you're making the situation worse. So that's my problem with that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seeing no further clarifying questions, thank you for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Kai Nishiki on Teams.

Hi, Kai. Aloha, Chair. There we go. Hi, I can hear you.

Great. Aloha chair and committee members. Kai Nishiki testifying on both items. I am deeply concerned that sea level rise and coastal erosion are being used to justify removing housing intended for residents and converting these properties to visitor use. Sea level rise is indiscriminate. The ocean does not care whether a unit is occupied by a Maui resident or a tourist. Changing the community plan designation and the occupants does not change the hazard, extend the useful life of an aging building, restore a disappearing beach, or protect the public from eventual financial and environmental consequences. Testimony from shoreline TVR properties illustrates this contradiction. They describe properties within the Slorexa and flood zones that are already experiencing waves overtopping seawalls and inundating properties. Yet most have no secured funding or realistic plan for the eventual removal of their structures. These are very serious reasons to plan for adaptation, not reasons to designate these properties for more intensive and profitable visitor use. The county's 2025 hazard mitigation plan warns that coastal erosion can cause beachfront property values to decline, damage the county's tax base, and increase public costs. It identifies approximately $1.2 billion in a replacement value for buildings in the coastal erosion hazard area. West Maui leads the county with 162 of the 366 buildings identified. This is an existential financial and environmental problem that cannot be ignored. The West Maui Community Plan calls for tourism management that protects residents' quality of life and the area's environmental, culture, and character. It was also the first community plan to take sea level rise into consideration during the community plan process update just a few years ago we intentionally did not up designate a lot of these tvr properties the plan should not now be amended to accommodate a predetermined zoning outcome or maximize the remaining revenue that can be extracted from hazardous shoreline properties The council should require a comprehensive coastal analysis of each property, including its remaining useful life, structural condition, shoreline certification, history of shoreline hardening, public access, environmental and cultural impacts, insurance availability, and removal options. Property owners should initiate their own amendments so the environmental and cultural reviews ordinarily required of applicants are completed. Owners receiving an enormous financial benefit should be responsible for demonstrating that the change serves the public interest. Our community plans guide us towards safer development and healthy coastal ecosystems, not further entrench aging development in known hazard areas. This proposal essentially concludes that because these properties may not provide reliable long-term housing for residents, they should be converted into short-term rentals. This is not an adaptation strategy. It encourages investors in risky shoreline properties to extract as much private revenue as possible before these buildings reach the end of their useful life. The public deserves to know what comprehensive legislation this Council is developing to address the long-term future of these properties. Where are the structural assessments, hazard mitigation plans, financial reserves, demolition and restoration obligations, and prohibition against repairing shoreline hardening? Who will be responsible when seawalls fail, beaches disappear, buildings become uninhabitable, insurance becomes unavailable, and emergency cleanup is required? At what point do these properties transition from revenue generators into unfunded liabilities? The county, state, FEMA, and taxpayers must not be left holding the bag after investors have collected millions of dollars in short-term rental revenue and moved their capital elsewhere. It is reckless to encourage additional investment into known hazard areas while allowing owners to assume the government and taxpayers will bail or protect these properties. If these units cannot provide reliable long-term housing, they should either be demolished with their water and sewer allocations freed for safe, affordable housing outside hazard zones or acquired by the state or county for limited time occupancy by residents. This does not have to be a choice between housing for residents and permanent TVR use. During the last legislative session, Senate Bill 3034 proposed voluntary acquisition of vulnerable coastal properties at hazard adjusted residual value. That value accounts for future demolition, monitoring, environmental cleanup, and shoreline restoration. A property could remain temporarily occupied under short-term renewable leases only while it remains safe. When occupancy is no longer safe, the structure would be removed, redevelopment prohibited and shoreline restored. West Maui has the greatest need With more than 2,000 slug affected properties, Maui County could partner with the Lahaina Community Land Trust to acquire properties with some years of safe occupancy remaining and temporarily rent the units to Maui residents. This would provide time-limited housing without encouraging local families to invest their life savings in properties with no secure long-term future. If the county grants enormous financial benefit of hotel zoning, it must impose corresponding and enforceable kuleana, including bonded financial responsibility for removal and restoration. Please do not advance these community plan amendments and rezoning in isolation. With great privilege comes great kuleana.

Thank you. Member Palten has a question for you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Nishiki. I wanted to clarify, I thought I heard you say comprehensive coastal analysis? Yes. And then all I caught from that was that it would include structural analysis, financial reserves, bonded financial responsibility. Did I miss? What else was a part of the comprehensive coastal analysis?

Let's see, remaining useful life, shoreline certification, history of shoreline hardening, insurance availability, removal options, action plan for orderly transition of end of life shoreline properties.

And then, what is the type of entity that would perform a structural analysis or remaining useful life?

Like, who does that? There are engineers who can do structural analysis and structural integrity inspections, and they are regularly employed by property owners. I do think that that there should be some sort of regular monitoring and reporting to the county. In fact, a couple of administrations ago, there was a task force passed actually with with looking at some sort of requirement within the county, just so that we would ensure that property owners were being responsible in doing so. And I think that was in part in response to some structural collapses in coastal hazard areas in other states.

Okay, and so this is what I wrote down, comprehensive coastal analysis, structural analysis, financial reserves, bonded financial responsibility, remaining useful life, shoreline certification, removal option, action plan, insurability. Did I get them all?

I think there's a few things, you know, a hazard mitigation plan or a managed retreat plan, and to really make sure that the folks have the financial reserves, but that could be accomplished by the bonded. I can also... submit my testimony in writing and there is a lot of but there's a huge body of work being done by academics at the university of hawaii at manoa institute for sustainability and resilience and i would really urge this committee to reach out to dr mckenna kaufman she has done a number of recent studies, sea level rise impacts on residential real estate values in Hawaii. There's a lot of research ongoing through the institute there, and they would be a great resource for the county. And they're also even available to do some very specific studies um that maui county could engage with them they have done things for kauai county and a whole financial reality study for managed retreat for kauai and so i could also attach links to their research

Thank you, yeah, I guess I would request for you to turn in the testimony and writing and the links. And then Kaufman is with a C?

Yes, C-O-F-F-M-A-N. And McKenna like the beach? Dr. McKenna, like the beach. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, members. Any other clarifying questions? Member Rollins-Fernandez, go ahead.

Hello, Chair. And for the record, I am on Maui now, made it safely. I'm in my office alone on my side of the office, and will join you out in the chambers after that. Okay. Aloha, Mr. Ishiki. Mahalo for your testimony. Sorry, I was trying to track it. Did you share with us as far as like, I don't know what it was called, like mitigation or the recommendations, like what other places that we're using these initiatives or strategies? Sorry if I missed that.

I recently attended a shoreline conference on O'ahu and I was quite inspired and surprised that there are a lot of other municipalities taking action on on managed retreat removing um structures uh uh and infrastructure off of our shoreline and uh and so you know while i understand you know hawaii is unique uh we can definitely learn from from other places who you know this is not a unique problem uh around the world this this is an issue and so um yes there there are many other places doing it and actually in in hawaii there there are cases where we are removing sea walls we are removing structures um on on on oahu recently at the blnr um a property owner uh removes a structure, a home off of the coastline and the beach almost immediately moved in. And so when we make room for our beaches, we are also improving our own coastal resiliency. And we can't just make these short term, like we're talking about, oh, why don't we just use the money from the revenue to go build, but go build know places that are outside the hazard areas which is great that's good but it still doesn't address the issue so let's not like you know go put our attention towards something else we're talking about these structures that are on the shoreline and it's time to take action like Let's not push this to our kids and our future generations to have to address. You guys are here right now. And I know that you take your kuleana seriously. So have great faith that you will not kick this down the road for our kids to have to continue to deal with. yes yes we can we can learn and there is uh there are options and you know we just got to get creative there's a bill at the state ledge just last term saying let's initiate a buyback program so that we are um we we're embracing our kuleana and really looking at all the things like oh yeah well these buildings just actually shouldn't be there so what do we want them that short, time-limited occupancy, let's have that be for our local people and not for the tourists.

Mahalo, Ms. Nishiki. Mahalo, Chair. Of course. Thank you. Member Sugimura.

Thank you. Thank you, Kai. Always informative. What is the House bill number or the bill number

SB 3034. Thank you. And I believe that Surfrider helped provide background information on that bill, so I could connect you with them to talk story.

Please. And so that did not pass, right, from what you're seeing? It did not. It's in the works.

Yes, a new and improved version is on the way.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Ms. Nishiki, next testifier, please.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is C. Rose Riley in the Council Chamber.

I saw her earlier. Okay, I think she's walking down.

Aloha, aloha and good morning. Thank you for having this meeting so that I can testify on both items. I feel I cannot reiterate this very true pertinent data of our statuses with water, housing, needs, directions, any more beautifully or eloquently than the Heinestrong already has. We've already heard from many repeatedly that these are housing units in a very affordable and attainable levels for Maui's families in need. And even in the locations they want to live. We know that not only are the majority two-thirds by his count of Tom Cook's constituents, non-residents. So I will define constituent as relevant in this situation. Constituent, one, being a part of a whole. In which ways are investors that are looking at these books part of our whole? Members on a stock portfolio are the least of the value of the opportunities offered in this situation when we have the incredible Ike of Lahaina Strong versus the unending greed of a society killing the planet. This is divine spiritual communion. These people have what it takes to make a sustainable living situation here. They've had it for how many millennia and they will continue to have it afterwards because it is how they are and how they live. These others, in the same amount of time, have proven their degradation to this planet in order to coin the term planeticide. Even in their time of intense grief and suffering, Lahaina Strong have come forward with exactly what I would find most helpful in collaborations of our mayor and community. Okay, number two, being a voting member of an organization and having to appoint or elect and power to appoint or elect where I feel this term is what he meant. So a constituent having the power to appoint or elect is not an investor that doesn't live here and isn't part of our voting. So when we speak of corruption and confused, this is it. That they're even considered shows the depth of sickness of thought and the intensity of the disconnect he and the rest carry between words and their intentions. And perfectly, reflects to me why he and the rest cannot hear reason, facts, and true course, because business as usual is threatening them, and they're properly trained to concede, or actually hold these fantasies of endless extractions as true ways to live in their hearts, if they're able to even feel hearts. Number three, being able to make or change political constitution. And this definition of parameters, making decisions while not carrying the full definition of being a part of a whole, is what I find most concerning. And I feel this is the level of implication of their twisting of words, definitions, facts, stories, and understandings. that just because a cheating boyfriend or abusive authority would not be tolerated, they've gotta justify their necessary evils. There's about 100 units that belong to community members from this list. The planning department wants to vet the applications on a case-by-case basis, making it that they have priority in application, assessment, consideration, and outcome, fulfills the constituents' needs in this situation. Do not let disconnected investors looking at numbers on papers far from here try to understand our decimated water tables and desperately over-packed roads. They don't have the connections or ike. And as far as taking time to aggressively attempt to correct a fire survivor about their take on one of Tom Cook's recommendations to slide right into this so-called new hotel use after operating illegally for how long? How much do they owe? Not paying the proper taxes for how long? What a dis... service to this community because we could have really used not only those units but that money. Aren't these taxes a lot more? Doesn't that mean that they've cheated us so desperately, deeply in our times of greatest need? But also financially for our families to be able to bring themselves into better relation with this whole system. taken that opportunity away from them by using these units illegally and wrong for all of these decades. How much of these reparations are we gonna see? Any of them? Three times as much water is not the same amount of water. After going to water meetings for 10 years on this island, diligently every single side and every single one that I certainly could have, it is dire and very scary. And the desalinization is not a solution. If anyone should be desalinating, it's Mahi Pono, so that they can look at what it takes to take that waste and try and compost it back into a livable soil. Do not fast-track privileges to the... Please vote no on these unnecessary measures and let the planning department do their part. Thank you so much. Thank you. Clarifying questions.

I just wanted to clarify, it's not just the lesser wrong tax, but that it's also one third of the assessment. So when you multiply that, it's much worse than what you said, right? Okay, yeah. Okay, thanks.

So it's not just the tax, but it's like the real property assessment.

Because if they're not classified as a short-term rental, the assessment is much less because in theory you could make less money. So they're assessing it like at one-third of the rate that it was purchased for. So when you do the assessment times the much lower tax rate, it's exponentially worse.

I didn't even see that level. Yeah, right. Totally. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Jordan Hawker here in the chamber.

Is she here?

No? Okay, then if she's not here, then we'll go to representing the Royal Patston Kingdom on teams.

Sounds good.

Aloha, representing the Hawaiian kingdom, okay.

And I see that you guys are gonna- Real quick, representative, we cannot hear you. Do you mind moving just a little bit closer to the mic? We're gonna turn you up on our end, but just to make sure you're not, we can hear everything you're gonna say.

Okay.

Okay, try again.

Okay, how about now?

Better, thank you.

Okay, aloha representing the Hawaiian kingdom. And what is that called? I saw that you guys are planning for or planning to do rezoning and stuff like that for all these properties. And for a few of those properties, I saw K Bay Vista, for example, And if you guys ever check your guys' historical documents and everything like that, in the legal information of all of those properties, in the Ka'onoulu Ahupua'a, you will see that land and land commission award and royal patent belongs to Heva Heva. And none of us were contacted about any of these rezonings or anything like that or whatsoever. Because if you guys see in your land documents and your historical documents, it all says Heva Heva on top of it in the legal information. And we haven't been contacted at all and was just wondering how you guys are going to be doing all of this. And for sea level rise and all of these things like that, or even the river, even trying to build sea walls and walls for the river to flow and not hit your buildings or whatever is telling Pele where she can and cannot go. It's literally the same thing. So why would you guys do that to the water anyway, seawater or freshwater? And we haven't been contacted at all. And that land rightfully and lawfully belongs to all in your guys' documents. And yeah, we haven't been contacted also. So please contact the true heirs and the rightful title holders. Or call the original title holder and all of their descendants anyway. because that's what it's supposed to be by law. And yeah, and even all the rest of the other properties, I noticed that not all of the properties show the legal information on a TMK that's supposed to have, which is the original land, the origination of the land, right? A lot of the properties are not showing the legal information which needs to be shown and yeah, it's that sketchy. So please fix that ASAP and return all the lands to the specific heirs. Mahalo.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next testifier, please. We're gonna do one more and then take a quick bio break.

Okay, the next testifier is the caller with the last four digits 4945. And just to clarify, they've testified on resolution 26 dash 129. And we'll see if they want to testify on 26 dash 130. And they can do star six to unmute themselves.

Thank you, Keone. I'm glad you're still there. You seem like one of the good guys. I'm glad you're witnessing whatever they're trying to do, what they call weaponize the Justice Department. So please, County Council, please just keep this to yourselves The justice people have enough to do. They usually screw it up and then you got to go through more waste time, more lawyers, more money, more time. That's pretty much my objective here today is just to waste time. And then you can place the blame in the clerk's office. So whatever you got to do, straighten it out. I'm glad I jumped in right after the last testifier, the Royal House of Hawaii. I was listening to the All the testifiers at the last housing and use committee meeting where the majority of the council ignored the Hawaiians again and decided to try to build on their land. The old Hawaiian gods are not gonna allow that. Something's gonna happen, especially with the fire department. And Pele is one of the major gods of that religion. I'll go back to one of my old standbys. One of the only sayings I know from all of the Hawaiian people is, e ali'i ka aina, e kauwa ke kanaka. That means the land is chief and the man is the servant. And it's sad that even the English language has brainwashed the mind of the, I have a person that was speaking there earlier, I heard him say properties. He used his own, he used the old English word to describe his own lands. And to me, the word property is something that you can take or that belongs to you. So that's why I'm trying to change the words. And when you use the word property, please refer to the buildings and improvements of the land and keep the INS separate. So I didn't set my timer though. So Keone, let me know when I'm getting close to the 30 second mark and then I'll... hang up because I don't really know. I tried to look at the press packet and the information that was available back in the day. I've been going through this for a while. I can't make heads or tails of all this legal mumbo-jumbo zoning stuff, and I would like to go to the zoning department and try to find out what's going on here, but I'm pretty sure they get the, with the recent security breach and stuff is... probably not gonna be allowed to look at the information. So as soon as I get some of this legal, we'll take it, clear it off, and I'll be back.

Members, any clarifying questions?

Ambassador Guy, watch out for him, because I'll be back.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier after the break will be who? Please list the next two testifiers.

It's Jordan Hawker is on teams, and then Salah M on teams also.

Okay, great. It is now 10.45 and we will come back at 10.50. Welcome back, everyone. Will the HRU meeting please reconvene? It is 11.01 a.m. And if we could continue with testimony, if you could please call our next testifier. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Jordan Hawker on Teams.

Hello, everyone. I would like to keep my camera off today because I'm having technical difficulties. Can everyone hear me? We can hear you. Thank you. Okay, perfect. Aloha, my name is Jordan Hawker. I'm here today testifying on my own behalf as someone who has worked... Oh, Ms. Hawker, now we can hear you.

We left off at behalf. Are you still with us? Hello? Okay. Oh, oh. Miss Hawker. Everybody's service has been so junk after Lala.

Yes? Can the staff post the phone number and the code in the chat? I know. I don't know if that will help, but as an additional option.

Yes, if we could please post the phone number so people have other options. Ms. Hawker, we paused your time. Are you still with us?

I'm sorry. Yeah, I just had to rejoin real quick. Can you hear me? Okay, good.

Yes, we can hear you now. You pretty much have your whole time left because you cut off right at your beginning.

Please continue. All right, thank you so much, Chair. Okay, so quite frankly, I'm weary to be in front of this body discussing once again this issue. It's very clear that some of these agenda items are an attempt to undermine Bill 9, and despite repeated and ongoing attempts to box out the community still support an industry that is exploitative and extractive, in my opinion. Because there is no reality where we need more short-term vacation rentals than we need housing. And I hear the arguments that this housing is not fit for our people, but is somehow fit for a multi-million dollar industry. And quite frankly, that just doesn't make sense to me. The truth is these units represent something missing here in Maui County, which is equity and quality of life for our people. These units are close to restaurants, grocery stores, to the beach. They have walkability and they have the ability when filled with our people to create community. The same things that appeal to tourists would appeal to a better quality of life for our people. And my question is, why don't we want that for our people? Why won't we prioritize and reprioritize neighborhood centers and building pilina? The push by this industry to colonize housing and apartments on districts for investment purposes has decimated community. And quite frankly, it's one of the points of other testifiers I cannot get over that in a single lifetime, a person has watched their community become unrecognizable and filled with strangers. We asked that this used to be phased out. And yet here we are with an attempt to make this permanent. I've seen the list of units that are proposed to be H3, H4 zoned, and there's just no way that a majority of these properties actually operate as hotels. And the work has been done by other community members to show the difference in operation of some of these units compared to others. If the building was built to serve short-term rentals in those original building plans and permits, then sure, honor that. But when clearly so many were meant to be apartments and condos for our local people, it is ridiculous to disregard that intent. and we need to focus on correcting the past and stop focusing on protecting people's investment. And I think the tongue in cheek here thing that is happening is that we know that the purpose of this is also to protect the same property values that are pricing our families to the American continent. In my opinion, prioritizing these uses for short-term vacation rentals is a blatant move to keep mechanisms in place that are fueling our out migration. I cannot support this attempt to undermine Bill 9 when so clearly so much community has come out stating that we have a need here and that we want people, our people, living in these apartment zone districts. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms. Hawker. Does anybody have any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please. Thank you.

Chair, the next testifier is Salah M. on Teams.

Aloha. Aloha, council members. My name is Kelsey Sala Mapa, and I'm testifying on behalf of myself and my family. And I would like to testify on both items. I spoke out in support of Bill 9 because I believe that dignified housing for all is more important than profits for short-term rental investors. I still believe that and I am in opposition to both resolutions. This feels like you folks are backtracking and I'm really disappointed that we are here having to testify again. Anyways, as a parent in 2026, climate collapse is top of mind every day. We are watching in real time as disasters become more and more frequent. Crops are failing, making food more expensive, fresh water is drying up and conflicts over limited resources are unfolding all around the world. We are in the middle of a crisis. According to the United Nations Environment Program, building and construction sectors account for roughly 37 to 40% of global carbon emissions. The UN has also declared an era of global water bankruptcy. We learned in Bill 9 hearings that water is a concern that prevents us from building more affordable housing here on Maui. The University of Hawaii also published a study in 2018 on the effects of climate collapse in Hawaii. Their key findings included dependable and safe water supplies are threatened, sea level rise has accelerated and is now damaging critical infrastructure, increasing ocean temperatures and acidification threaten fisheries, coral reefs, and the livelihoods they support. With this information, it feels like allocating our very limited existing housing supply to short-term rentals and tourist accommodations will only exacerbate the climate collapse. With no water and an acidic ocean, who knows how much longer we will even have tourists who want to come here. This legislation feels like we are prioritizing a future that likely will not even exist. As several others have already said, I hope that we can stop wasting everyone's precious time and our taxpayer dollars paying for all of us to be here, debating whether profits or people should come first. Instead, please start meaningfully addressing the changing climate by improving our infrastructure, increasing our food sovereignty, and making our island more resilient. We have a lot of work to do and not a lot of time to do it. When I read Resolution 26-130, I didn't really see a clear explanation for why these units are being exempt. I hope that moving forward, there is more transparency. This issue affects all of us and we deserve to be informed about what is happening in our community. Previous testimonies made it seem like it might have something to do with these units not being appropriate for local families due to size and amenities. As a young couple, my husband and I lived in the Bay Area, another place with extreme housing issues and very high rents. We lived in half of a duplex with street parking and no in-unit washer or dryer. It was incredibly expensive considering that the space was old and tiny, but the location was important to us because of work and school. So we paid what we had to, and we were grateful to have housing and not be on the streets. I'd also like to offer that the state recently opened a 47-unit housing project in Lahaina for educators. These one to two bedroom units are 400 to 560 square feet with one to two parking stalls. I can send photos via email if you'd like to see, but these units are tiny. I feel like if the government feels these boxes are appropriate for educators to live in, then actual condos and apartments are definitely appropriate for local residents. There is a huge need here for these units. Earlier this month, there was a post on a local online bulletin board that stood out to me because of this issue. A community member shared, I have a family, a single mom with three kiki in desperate need of housing tonight. Even a few days or a week would help as the home she was set to move into on August 1st didn't want to deal with the headache of dealing with FEMA. who has all the money in hand, just can't find a slightly ADA unit, needs handlebars for the shower and bath and no stairs. Both lost homes in the Kona low storms. I have a fire survivor who just lost her husband and got behind on FEMA mail while dealing with the death and had her housing revoked. And it's in these moments that the community really needs to rise up and show another way as possible. I know in the height of the disaster, everyone and their grandma wanted to help Lahaina. And now three years later, it's no longer in the news, but in my experience this last couple months, the needs have been the highest and most critical that I've seen in two and a half years. And I'm getting over a dozen new emergency cases coming my way each week. So the need exists. And I think one last hurdle everyone is concerned about is funding. And I would propose that everyone here direct some energy at our federal government to use our own tax dollars to subsidize affordable housing and the green transition. Our federal government bails out banks and corporations that make poor decisions all the time. Why can't it also bail out local investors who have made poor unethical decisions too? earth it has the resources to do this and it is entirely possible if we choose to invest in these important changes instead of throwing billions of dollars into the military to conduct war and genocide and which is the largest institutional contributor in the world to the climate crisis if we are to survive as human beings we must fight for these changes all of us together our housing issues do not we must collectively choose to meet social needs like housing within the ecological limits set by our planet that means that we allocate housing that we already have to people and not for profit and that we don't just build our way out of the problem because we don't have the water to do that and we don't have the time to do that in conclusion please stand with our local families and don't undo

Thank you very much members any clarifying questions Yeah, I have a question for you after not a clarifying question for the okay sounds good members any clarifying questions Seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony Member Palten, you have a question for me?

Yeah, I think there's a student group here that would like to participate. Would it be possible, I don't know their time frame, but before they gotta go back to school. Okay, sure.

Give me one second, I'm gonna take a two minute recess and we'll talk stories how this would work and then I'll come back and we can let them know how that's gonna go, yeah.

Mahalo, Chair, I support that. Also, Mr. Albatron is number 36 on the testifier log.

Is that them? Okay, great, great, great, great, great. Okay, I remember that name. Thank you. One second. We will take a two-minute recess, come back at 11.15. Welcome back to the HOU meeting. Thank you for the short recess. It is now 1115 and we do have an in-person testifier who's gonna come up really quickly. Mr. Albrighton. And then we'll allow his students if they change their mind and then if they do not, we will continue on with the list as organized. Aloha.

Thank you for accommodating our limited availability today. My name is Shane Alberton. I teach agriculture and natural resources at Baldwin High School. We brought some of our upperclassmen today so that I don't think any of them have been in this room before. Yeah, so we've been talking about this issue and other issues related to Maui's resources, not just our natural resources, but our human resources and our housing resources for a long time. And I try to model what participation in our democracy looks like to our students. I'm not necessarily advocating that they agree with me. I am gonna testify my personal opinion today. But I do wanna point out that these kids are, they're all seniors, they're graduating this year, and they're gonna be going into a workforce and a housing market that is gonna be very difficult compared to the one that I went into when I was their age. When I was 18 years old, my mom encouraged me to move out of the house right away. And I rented a Ohana in Makawa for $300 a month. and even basically making minimum wage that was affordable to me, I could basically start my life and my working life, my career without too much help from my parents. Nowadays, it's looking like a room in a shared house is about $1,500 a month plus utilities if you're lucky. And I believe that one of the main reasons for that is so much of our housing supply has been commodified and turned into vacation rentals. And obviously, we've all gone through these conversations so many times about, do we need housing? Do we need vacation rentals? And at this point to be talking about turning so many of these apartments owned, potentially long-term housing units into hotels, I think is disingenuous and I think it's, you know, a way to justify kind of undoing all of the work that was done by the community on Bill 9. And I want to give some real world examples of that. So my wife and I, finally, I never thought it was going to be possible, bought our first house in Eow in 2023 with a lot of help from my wife's parents. And our property was severely flooded during the Kona Lows. And one of the things that we had to do to get it back into a livable condition is move out so that we could do mold mitigation and all of the work that was required to make it habitable again. And we had the option to go stay at my grandparents' house in Kihei with my two uncles and my cousin, and that wouldn't have been really conducive. Sorry, can I testify on both? Yeah, I did. I didn't say that. Um, so we decided to, uh, look for temporary accommodations and luckily FEMA and Lahaina Strong actually connected us with some resources. So we went and stayed at a vacation rental in Malaya and we paid $6,000 a week to stay in a two bedroom vacation rental to provide some kind of normalcy for my daughter. And, I don't think anybody who thinks about what does the word hotel mean would go to this building and look around and say, this is a hotel. I mean, it's clearly an apartment building, right? There's no staff, there's a shopping cart to bring your luggage up to the room, like nothing about it suggested that it was a hotel. And I was surprised at how many people were living there long term. I would say the majority of the people in the building that we stayed in were permanent residents that were just living in that building. And I mean, based on what I observed during the month and a half that we were there, maybe 15 or 20% of the units were used as vacation rentals. So, you know, thinking about just that basic question, what is a hotel and what is an apartment? I think it's plainly obvious that a lot of these properties are not hotels. And so to call it a hotel, to provide some kind of mechanism to continue to operate as a short-term rental, like I said, I think it's disingenuous. On the other hand, this past weekend, my daughter was in the, Emma Fartin Sharp Hula Show out in Lahaina, and we stayed at the Honua Kai. And there are vacation rentals at the Honua Kai, but that property clearly is a hotel. Like you pull up, there's a valet, there's a staff, there are well-maintained facilities, right? And I think anybody that's really being intellectually honest about the difference between a hotel and an apartment can very easily tell the difference. And I think a lot of these properties that are just kind of trying to jump on the bandwagon here and say, oh no, we're a hotel, we want hotel zoning. It's just so they can continue operating in the way that I feel like the community has decided is not good for us, right? I mean, like we don't need more hotel units, we need more housing. So anyway, that's my Mahalo.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We're gonna ask you a couple questions and give your students maybe some time to come up. Member Rollins-Fernandez, did you have a clarifying question? Okay, and then we'll see if the students wanna, okay.

Mahalo, Mr. Elbritton. My apologies for mispronouncing your name earlier. Okay, mahalo for your testimony and mahalo for bringing in your students. It's... so important to this education, this experience of coming in person, being here, and then hopefully that makes them feel more comfortable coming here again and engaging with us, seeing that we're not that scary. But government doesn't work without its people, and we need to hear from our residents, and we especially love hearing from our youth, from our OPO, because the decisions that we make today affect their future, all of our future together, but particularly our youth are the ones that are more substantially impacted, especially when there's long-term negative impacts of our decisions. If you feel comfortable, would you share what apartment building it was that you stayed in temporarily while you folks were doing the mold mitigation?

I believe it was called Kana'i Analu.

I think. Okay, mahalo. And then while you were at Kana'i Analu, were you able to speak to some of the residents that were there?

Not so much. We were super stressed out and kind of trying to just like, pretend everything was okay. My daughter's six years old, and so that was a very traumatic, stressful time. She made friends with a couple of the other little kids that are running around. Most of them are visitors. So yeah, one of the things we did is just go swim in the pool in the afternoons, but no, I didn't talk to too many of the residents.

And it was the Kanai'a Nalu'u unit that was 6,000 a week?

Yeah. Oh, I also forgot to mention, I made a mistake in the booking and we had to do these overlapping bookings because of the FEMA money, and then we got some money from Maui United Way. And so I had a gap in the booking, and I was trying to get in touch with somebody to rebook, and all of their booking was AI. All of these claims are like, oh, we're employing so many people. The entire booking system was AI. It took me two weeks to try to get somebody on the phone and be like, hey, I made a mistake. I need to change my booking. Yeah, so.

Okay, mahalo for that. And then, okay, I think that those are my questions. And Honuakai.

That was in Honokai, yeah.

Was where you stayed after Kana'i?

No, no, this past weekend we stayed in Honokai because my daughter was in the hula show in Lahaina and we didn't want to go all the way over. So that's an example of, you know, some of those units are privately owned, being used as vacation rentals, but it's operating as a hotel. Like anybody that went there would look at it and be like, yes, clearly this is a hotel. I think part of it is run by Outrigger, yeah.

Okay, okay, mahalo. Hopefully this discussion maybe inspired some of your students to want to share some of their own personal experience with housing and this legislation, mahalo.

Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, Member Cook, you have a clarifying question.

Thank you, sir, for coming and bringing the kids. My two youngest kids graduated from Baldwin, go Bears. Kind of my clarifying question, you mentioned the hotel. The TIG, when we did it, and this process of filtering, because that's really what it is. It's not trying to just put everything back in. The process of filtering out and identifying different categories, whether it's appropriate or not, which is a community discussion. So the hotel aspect of it was our first batch that we did. Now it's properties that are in the shoreline, and the next is also affordability. So those factors, Are you aware that those are? So it's multiple factors, it isn't just simply the hotel.

For sure, yeah. And I actually really supported that during the Bill 9 discussion of analyzing each property on a case-by-case basis and really making the best decision for each property based on the highest and best use. And I agree that some are operating as hotels, some are maybe unattainable, But I also think that a lot of the testimony that I've seen is disingenuous. I saw a guy last week stand up and say, oh yeah, I live in this property long term, but other people can't do it because they don't make as much money as me. I'm like, all right, well, obviously you can do it. It's not impossible if you can do it. But also, I sense that obviously the owners of these properties, they all wanna get in on this, right? Like they're all advocating for every property to be included on the list. And so it's incumbent on you folks to really take your time and think about like, is this a hotel? Is this suitable for long-term housing? What does that mean? Also saw some testimony that fire survivors are gonna get that settlement money eventually, and they're gonna have a big chunk of money to use it for a down payment. So there are other factors. If we're looking for problems and roadblocks, we can find them, but if we're looking for solutions, I think we can find them too. Well said, thank you.

We have so many questions for you. Member Palten, followed by Member Padangon.

I hope these questions don't discourage any youth participation. But I just wanted to clarify your answer to Member Cook is more so not batches, but individually, because we don't know how the Planning Commission is going to review these if we sent them individually or if they had applied individually then we would be more sure that they get the individual attention because as many people said not all properties are the same and especially in regards to the shoreline. So just clarifying that your request is more so like not, it's not against looking at the special circumstances but to take them on an individual basis.

I would advocate for assessing each one on a case-by-case basis, because they're all different.

Thank you, just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you, Member Patangan.

Thank you, Chair. And I'm gonna ask this question and encourage Brother Solomon to start making his way over to the testimony stand as you think about your answer, Ike Kumu. So you mentioned you stayed at Kanai'a Nalu and that it's clearly not a hotel and that Honuokai clearly is a hotel. Can you help us understand the defining characteristics of a hotel and what you believe would qualify properties for conversion to H3, H4?

Sure, I mean, one of the biggest criteria is, is there a visible staff? I don't think I saw one staff member in the entire six weeks that I was staying at Kanaya Nalu. We checked in, there was a box of the code that you got the key out. There's no valet, there's no, I mean, I guess I saw a guy taking care of the pool at one point, but any apartment building that has a community pool, they're gonna have to hire somebody to take care of the pool. So yeah, I mean, I think when, like during the Bill 9 testimony, when so many of these apartment vacation rental owners say, I employ all these people, what they meant was they're hiring contractors, right? They don't employ people. They're not on the payroll of these companies. Whereas a hotel, you know, most of the employees are there full-time, they're unionized, they have benefits, right? These are... you know, clearly employees of the property and not people that are being contracted to come in and, you know, fix the plumbing when there's a problem. So yeah, I would say staff is an obvious one. Yeah, I guess that would be the main criteria that I could point to between the two.

Thank you very much, appreciate it.

Thank you, thank you very much for participating in civics and bringing your students. It's okay if you guys don't wanna testify, seriously, no pressure, but just FYI, not only for this item, but for any item in any committee or in the council meeting, you're welcome to also do written testimony, participate online, however makes you feel heard, we're absolutely willing to listen.

Chair, just want to recognize that Council Member Johnson is online.

Yes, yes, I see him. Member Johnson. Aloha.

Thank you, Chair. I'm alone in my office, and pardon me for joining the meeting late. I had other meetings today, saying it's an off-meeting committee week. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you. Thanks for being with us. Member Paulton.

Just wanted to add that if they ever wanna testify during the budget ones, we do prioritize students so that they can go first. So budget is usually April, May-ish. So if you guys come, we can prioritize students to testify first.

Exactly. Okay, one last call for you folks. You guys good? Thank you so much for being with us. I like it. Thank you for being with us. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Greg Rilski.

Good morning, committee. Pleasure to be here again. Knowing that this is all about sending these properties through the Planning Commission, I'm gonna try and isolate on just that piece of it, because there's a whole lot more to be said, be more opportunities to say those things so as i've stated previously i worry about what happens when it gets to the planning commission when we have so many properties especially now that we're dealing with shoreline properties which the planning department who i hope join later i know they've been in the meetings but have had to sit through the testimony so hopefully they'll show up for your discussion, always talks about shoreline properties are they're each independently evaluated. And so some of the things that I hope that the council, the committee members have done, I know committee member Johnson, again, thank you so much for going to each and every property. And that's something I hope that everybody on the council is doing before they're making new decisions. and we keep adding properties. So there's communication that's going on between these properties and the committee. So it'd be great if part of the criteria that they even go on this list, we talked about, is it a hotel? Well, one of the things other than people is, if I've got a bad room, can I get another room right away? Can I go to the desk and get one? These properties, you cannot. You might not even be able to get another room despite there being rooms available. The fact that a lot of residents are in these properties that, again, I don't know if you've talked to any of the residents, but I do know that the HOA board members certainly love to come here and talk about how insuitable their properties are. One of the questions I would have is, what happens legally if these properties go and the boards accept responsibility, but what about all of the individual homeowners that are in there? We're a very litigious society. And so, do we need to get... everyone at that property to agree not to sue the county when the county says your building's gonna fall in the ocean and it needs to be removed. A lot of properties have seen the ocean for many years yet no one seems to have any retreat plans and that has been the county's position on shoreline has been, you know, what's your retreat plan? They get to get us to vote to make sure that they wanna be part of this discussion You know, they used to say that's BS, the ocean isn't rising. And now they're like, oh, look, we can keep our continental investments coming back to us here. So we're gonna be, we're gonna go in and admit that now. So there's a lot of, of things that, that each property we can look at, you know, do they have sinkholes? Do they have shoreline hardening? The, uh, just took down a hardening along the ocean. So is that an option that can come? A lot of these things, I mean, you guys want to have success when you go to the planning commission and the planning commission is already overwhelmed. So if the, if you guys can help them by kind of preparing things to give to them or having the staff or making sure planning, like if they can, I guess I'd like to see you guys pause, not stop this process and just talk to the property owners and be able to make sure that they at least have their ducks in a row. And if they don't, then we're kind of wasting the commission's time or they're gonna spend so much time not only dealing with all of the testimony that they're gonna have to go through, but then asking a bunch of questions. are there gonna be resources from each of these properties available for the Planning Commission? So since the committee members have had these discussions with these properties, if they could kind of let them know what their path to success is, then that would definitely be a big deal. You know, there was the other properties that are on the other side of the highway. So I just wonder, you know, in Lahaina when they rebuild, kind of came up we said hey anything you know macro side of front street you're okay so are we not thinking the same thing in kihei does infrastructure not run run all up and down uh south kihei road do the properties that are subject to flood from the mountainside like there is one resident who didn't want to be a resident in her place anymore you know because no one wants to live in a hotel but she lost multiple vehicles and she wants to put a wall up And how did the island survive before without these walls and without these hardened shorelines and without all of these visitor accommodations when there is no shortage of hotel rooms? on the island. There's just a lot of opportunity that the committee can do, that they can send to, they can, because we already know what the general questions that the commission has. I don't want to have overlap, and I don't want you guys to step on their toes, but if you can put these properties in a position of success by having all of these check marks as done, and if they're not, then send it back. I mean, if there is no plan for retreat, like how, where have you been? Have you not seen the ocean like this? That should be the number one thing. If you don't have a retreat plan, okay, cool. Come back to the council when you have a retreat plan, right? You know, and residents, we, you know, there's, there are, Not everybody needs to live in a 4,500 square foot place with X number of bedrooms. Some people can do just fine, but listening to some of the other test, I mean, is there something wrong with me? Do I not understand that Hawaii life, Maui life is different than mainland life? We don't have a hundred acres in Montana that we do accept, hey, it's a little small, maybe we don't have the parking, but that's okay, because look at where we are. You know, there's trade-offs to everything. So I just hope that the committee can take this opportunity and to be in a position of success.

Thank you. Members, any clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Oh, Member Paulton, oh, sorry, I missed you earlier when I did my scan.

No problem. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify when you said a checklist, I got retreat plan. Can you list the, or can you clarify the entirety of the checklist that you were referring to?

I can include some partial things that are put on a checklist, but I did not. prepare a checklist but one of the big ones would be a liability has every homeowner every owner in the property of they agreed because one of the things that the Planning Commission does is like hold the county harmless because these are shoreline properties so while the Association may be more than happy to do that I would like to see every current owner also agree to waiving that liability. And then if there's a deep forward element to that so that anyone who's buying it knows that. Other checklists would be, are there sinkholes? You know, what is the status of their shoreline hardening? Can they remove their shoreline hardening but they don't want to because they might lose the pool, right? so like what are the There's there's an opportunity within this checklist to look at you know the insurance I've seen other things where the county needs to be a beneficiary of an insurance policy or rather they have to be notified So there's there's ideas on insurance, you know if it's a hotel Is it really a hotel? Like not the Andes and these fancy hotels that have been kind of described, but like, is it like the Hampton Inn? Can you, you know, is there a shopping cart to help you get your things up? Are there any staff on hand? If something happens at night, is there someone that you can call that isn't the individual management agent of the owner, but is like a property person?

And to clarify, a stolen shopping cart is not an indicator, is what you're saying?

I make no accusations whether the shopping cart was stolen or purchased. Sorry, I added that part. I have never gone to any kind of a hotel and gone into the lobby and gotten a shopping cart to move my luggage.

Yeah, I meant to say finders keepers, sorry. I didn't wanna imply any alleged crime.

Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Member Alonso-Hernandez, go ahead.

Mahalo, Chair. Mahalo, Mr. Alroski, for your testimony this morning. So you mentioned your concern about the number of properties that these resolutions could potentially be asking the Maui Planning Commission to review in the short timeline that they have. would you be able to clarify, like, as far as, like, what is, like, reasonable? Because, like, oh, bye, students. Mahalo for joining us. Sorry. As far as... because there are proposed amendments that would add more properties and then so they have like the ones that were already sent and then these would be more in that short charter required time frame. So as far as like, I don't know, We've discussed reasonable amount of charter amendments that we would put on the ballot, but haven't, as a committee, discussed what's the reasonable amount of properties to have our volunteer board members or planning commissioners review in their time.

So in my time in observing and testifying at the Planning Commission, there are times where one entire meeting takes up a property and then they have to move it to the next meeting. So the other things that are on that agenda, they get delayed. So there have been a lot of delays. And speaking of delays, like the west side has an earlier date than south side. or we'll just say non-West Side properties. So it would be nice if the West Side were prioritized because those are the ones that are on the shorter timeline. But when it gets to the Planning Commission, the more you guys can do in advance, the faster it'll go. But it seems to me very unfair to have more than five properties And that's also assuming that there's nothing else we need the Planning Commission to review, because all they're gonna be doing is this. So if we want to really limit the ability of the Planning Commission, then more than five is really not, From what I've observed, I'm hoping planning will be able to shed light. Maybe they've had discussions with the commission, but this is just, we're not putting them in a position for success. And by that very means, the last thing you guys want is for them not to even get to it. and then it comes back to you guys and you don't even have a recommendation. And we have 30 properties and are we gonna sit through the council going through each individual property? Is each property person gonna be a resource and they're gonna come up and answer all of those questions that the commission just didn't get to because they didn't have enough time?

Very reasonable. Mahalo for your response to my question. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you, members. Any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please. How much, we have what, four, five more left?

Seven.

Seven, okay, apparently I cannot count. Okay, we'll go.

Okay, the next testifier is John Carty.

Hello, my name is John Carty, I'm from the West Side, and thank you for yet another opportunity to testify on this. I'm opposed to both resolutions. For those of you who've brought this resolution, I don't begrudge you for getting paid for being here today, but for the rest of us who are hustling around trying to make it all happen for our families, it's been a lot of opportunities to testify. So here we are again, another attempt to undermine what's already been decided. And for what? Because nearly all of these properties have been built for housing. And nearly all these properties are owned by outsiders and being rented to outsiders. So perpetuating, this is perpetuating just a horrible legacy of prioritizing foreign money at the expense of the people and the land. And housing is fundamental, like food and water. So sometimes it feels like an attack against our local community, and it's disgusting. So stop undermining Bill 9. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you. Next testifier, please.

Thank you, Chair. The next testifier is Robert Bentz. Robert Bence on Teams. Mr. Bence, you're enabled on our end. You can go ahead and unmute.

Thank you. Before I raised my hand, it didn't let me unmute. So I had to raise my hand to have you guys allow me to unmute on my side. It's very, I would echo all the great testimony from those Kiki and I went to school with Shane. So there's much more qualified testifiers than me. It's I know there's a couple of Council members that are definitely going to do the right thing, but The county plan already had something that We're supposed to kind of limit how much tourism we have. And even before the fires and all the housing problems we had, we were already on the list from, I think, the Fromers or whatever the fancy well-known travel guide is, is listing us as a place not to visit because we have too much tourism. So... the argument to say that because of the sea level rise, when most of these people, I shouldn't even get it and started on that, but it seems kind of ironic and the sea level rise, then those buildings should be condemned. They should be owned by the county as affordable, in the time before they get destroyed, but they took out the Baldwin Beach Pavilion, everything. So the county is good at shoreline retreat. I don't believe I've seen any of these well-funded for-profit operations being good at the managed shoreline retreat. So if there is any shoreline issues, I would say, they should be condemned and not be given H3, this new weird kind of housing. I don't feel very represented by our Kula council member, listening to all of these local respected members of the community spend their time on something that doesn't really, I mean, we're gonna, we're not directly affected we just know it's good for the community and what's bad for the community and if you have funding from airbnb and other people that are they're making money off of what was a loophole that i could see why you're going to support this but it's it seems like one of these things that everybody should stick together and either be hot or be cold, even support Bill 9, or don't support Bill 9, don't just have thousands of units, not have to go through the regular planning commission if they are able to meet the qualifications of the hotel zoning that was already around. You don't need this new zoning at all. You don't need this massive group of properties all rezoned by console action. It seems like it's kind of rewarding what was wrong. And I believe that goes for both of the engine items. I hope you listen to the next generation and to all the more informed testifiers that came before me. But, yeah, so I think this is a generational unity kind of a thing. Like my mom, she talked to those fishing for housing protesters. It seems like the only thing that the council gave them was the Bill 9. And just... having that much units and saying, oh, we can't afford them. I heard Tom mentioned the tax issue. They're all not just the hotels, but these short-term rentals are very, very low tax. They should all be higher tax. And if people leave them sitting empty and don't long-term rental, they should get a very, very high tax. So I think there's a lot of tax mechanisms that the council has to do more with less SDRs and more local housing. Mahalo.

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

Chair, the next testifier is Jacqueline Thine on Teams.

Aloha. I'm testifying against you guys passing Bill 88. I feel like it just undermines Bill 9. And then all these out-of-state investors, they live out of state, so they're spending their money wherever they live. And I just feel it's disrespectful for you guys to past something that the community is so against and it's just it's upsetting um that this is even it goes on and on and on and housing is an issue like my brothers don't own their own houses um and you know my son may never own his own house here if you know it's it's You're allowing these people to create generational wealth for themselves out of state. The money doesn't stay here. And yeah, I just hope you guys really take into consideration that the people from here and that live here want to stay and we're willing to do what it takes to stay. So I just hope you guys take that into consideration.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I just wanted to clarify, cause you said bill 88, but, um, and this is good. That's what I was just making sure this is, um, resolutions as related to bill 88, but I wanted to make sure cause we need to have that specified. Okay. Thank you. Um, members, any clarifying questions? If not, thank you very much for your testimony. Next testifier, please.

Chair, the next testifier is Sati Brown on Teams.

Mahalo, thank you for your attention today and for everybody's efforts on all sides. I'm here to basically address a couple things. I know a couple earlier testifiers mentioned I am, by the way, in support of providing passing these amendments for the H3H4 zoning. And I just wanted to comment on a couple things. You know, there's a lot of conversation happening about, you know, the original topic of Airbnb and what it was for. Well, if the purpose of somebody being able to support their own families in whatever manner they are, whether they're off island, whether they're local investors investing in the island and providing for their families, that's a right of everybody. And I think we're getting lost in a lot of the discrimination here. You know, there are local families here investing in the homes that are being restricted on not short-term renting. So whether people are distant, whether they're local, it's a basic right, no different than people collecting alimony and child support. You're not going to turn away money that you use, an opportunity to turn money that you use to support your family in order to be able to survive inflation and the cost of living and affordability. And the perception gets lost, I think, when people are saying the investors are making millions. I think there's been more than enough transparency in the last three years of testifiers explaining what owners are making and not making and there's no factual data that says they're millionaires and they're getting rich off of the island but where there is factual data is that there is money that is allocated and funded through Maui County and the budgets for the tax money to support our community and I also want to mention that you know comments about you know they're not taxed enough well str owners are paying from what i could tell the highest level of tax on island in the first place for any business so they are paying a great fair share amount um and i feel like we're just getting lost when it comes to the discrimination and and so forth versus you know what everybody has a right to support their family and if this is not a logical decision to make because and to burden local families with ownership, strict ownership and not the right to be able to generate income from these homes by not restoring their ability to short-term rent because of the burden of the shoreline issues and so forth, then that's something we need to consider, not local versus not local. And that's just all I had to say. I feel like sometimes the focus just gets turned around clearly everybody here cares about people and we're just getting lost in some of the thank you very much the non-legal thing thank you so much for your time thank you members any clarifying questions member allens fernandez go ahead

Mahalo, Chair.

Aloha, Ms. Brown. Mahalo for your testimony. I was struggling to understand, so I'm hoping that you will be able to clarify. Which or what proposed actions that the council is considering are you characterizing as discrimination?

I can't speak for what the council is considering because that's within your guys's closed quarter discussions that move your decisions. What I am addressing is the public communications that are coming in the testimonies and so forth that are being presented to you the cases I wanted to be able to provide some sort of thought process as to why those should not be considered because they're just they're not of legal standing.

Okay, so the testimony from the public that we're receiving are not legal, you said?

I'm saying they're not legally based. Basically, you guys have, I've heard throughout this time, you know, internally through the council comments about who should and should not have the right to be able to participate in beating their families in this method. And how those ideas and how those beliefs route themselves, you know, it's a personal decision. And I just wanted to speak my fair share as far as why that's just not in some ways logical.

Okay, Mahalo for responding. I guess I think some of the testimony that we received because over 90% of the units are owned by non-residents, that's kind of what it was tied to. Is that what you mean that is discrimination?

I don't know what you mean by that because I wasn't addressing the 90% or the percentage of owners versus local owners versus non-local owners. Just what I had mentioned in my three minutes is what I had to say.

Mahalo Char. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. We have four more left. Members, are you guys okay to stay for a little while? Normally we take our lunch now, but I would like to just kind of finish this up before we go on our typical lunch. I know we have two testifiers here in person. You guys okay to stay a little while? Okay, great, thank you. Next one, please.

The next testifier is Charles Nahali.

And it's a little bit disappointing to have to be here again to testify on this bill. We worked long and hard. There was a lot of money, time, influence went into Bill 9, getting it all together. I was grateful for that bill because it gave an opportunity for to help locals. It took a lot of fight. We were here for every one of the meetings. Then to have to come back again, we get that passed. We had appeal here today and when we were testifying back then to get bill nine best and to have it be dwindled down because certain people don't like what's in bill nine. That fight should have been enough. It's disappointing to hear that one of the considerations on dwindling this bill down is shoreline. The shoreline belongs to, Hawaii into the Kamainas of this land. The reason they are million dollar homes now is not because locals can't live there. It's because when people with Kala come in and build homes next to Kamainas whose generational land extends to the ocean and the laws are written so that to no fault of their own. Their property tax now is $60,000. Well, I know how one can do it. It's money. pull the wool over our eyes. We, who are born and raised here and can trace our genealogy back to the beginning, we've seen it and we know it, and I bring with me, as I'm sure everyone else who is from here, all of our kūpuna, all of our history, our culture, and the trauma that we are living today because of the injustices to us This builds an opportunity to make right something for the people so that they don't have to continue to suffer and offer the opioid nothing. I lost my home three years after the fire. I'm still in limbo. This bill directly affects me and thousands of other people like me. To live out of a suitcase for three years, think that's fun? And you know, when you boil down to the nucleus of this bill, it boils down to money. Why would you want to change this bill that passed? From what I see, what I'm observing, it's money. It always is, and for some reason, it's mostly continental people, because island people don't think like that. Money is not what brings us happiness. Sharing, being a Hui, being kind, showing aloha, that's what fills us. not only here in this world, but as a Hawaiian, we have another foot in the other world. That world gets reflected through us because that world is only love. That's aloha. And I can see why this bill is being presented, why are we having to come back here and do this all over again? Because there are people who are more interested in lining their pockets, getting rich. This is You know, I also, I remember when I was here, one of the times that we had the testimony, there was a person testifying that said, who had a lot of short-term rentals and said they wouldn't rent it to locals if that bill, if bill nine passed. That's how difficult to hear that as a Hawaiian. Capitalizing on our land, our beauty, our culture, our aloha, we will not rent to, Locals will leave those properties vacant. Let's let's end this. Let's keep a bill nine. Uh, let's not dwindle it down. So there's less opportunities for people like me who are still in this borderland of not knowing where I'm going.

Thank you, thank you very much for your testimony. Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. Mahalo for your testimony and for being with us. I'm sorry that you're continuing to be in limbo after the fire. I wanted to clarify a couple parts where you referred to this bill just so that it's clear for the record and for public listening in. So when you said this bill was the opportunity to make things right that would impact thousands, including you and other residents. You meant Bill 9 for that section?

Yes.

And then the portion where you said this bill is about lining their pockets, it was about the bills attached to Resolution 26-129 and 26-130.

Pardon me, thank you for clarifying that. Absolutely, yes.

Mahalo for that clarification.

Thank you.

Members, any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate you being here with us today. Our next testifier is Jordan Reedus.

Okay, great.

Aloha Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jordan Ruiz and I'll be testifying as myself today, a Lahaina girl through and through, here again to fight and hold the line for the community. I'm speaking today as someone who has watched my neighbors get replaced by revolving doors of visitors in these very apartments and I have watched my hometown struggle through an ongoing housing crisis. Then we lost our town and a lot of what was lost was our generational family homes and our affordable housing. so now we find ourselves in a housing emergency. I am in strong opposition to resolutions 26-129 and 130, as well as the two properties member Sugimura added last minute. I want to remind the committee of the purpose of our apartment zone districts once again. Under Maui County Code Title 1912, these districts are intended to provide higher density, long-term residential housing for our residents. That foundational purpose needs to remain at the forefront of your decision making. These districts are critical to providing stable housing for our local families, especially as our community continues to recover. Let's be real, you folks are not going to find us housing in hotel zoned areas. That need has not gone away and that need will be even greater if FEMA pulls out in early 2027. Wow, deja vu, I feel like I testified about this when FEMA was going to pull out earlier this year. There is no shortage of short-term rental accommodations in Maui. What we have a shortage of is housing for local families and working class families, the folks who work day in and day out to help keep our county going. Even if we got all of the units on the Minnetonka list back, there would still be roughly 8,000 permitted short-term accommodations on Maui, and that does not include all the hotel accommodations. These exemption lists feels like we are simply opening the floodgates. Now, well, if you ask me, the floodgates were opened a while ago. Now you folks are flooded day in and day out with emails from STR owners pleading their case to be able to continue. And I have to say this plainly, they will say whatever they need to say to protect their investment. And it feels like in doing so, they're making a mockery of a very real housing crisis. We've been fighting for our shorelines, for our communities, for our right to stay in our own neighborhoods, and now all of a sudden, these same arguments are being used to protect their investments and preserve short-term rental income. That is incredibly hard to sit with and listen to. Once one property is allowed to continue, more owners come forward with their reasons for why they should be on the exemption too. Where does it end? Where will you folks draw the line? I've been hearing multiple testifiers asked to be added to these lists only because their neighbors made it on the lists. Well, I want to say something as an actual neighbor to some of these buildings. Some of these very properties are my neighbors too. Nohonani, Haleo naloa. And now member Sugimura has added my neighbor Kalealoha. And as their neighbor, I'm saying no. I want real neighbors. I want families who live here. I want kids riding their bikes down the street. I want people checking on one another. I want neighbors who know one another. I do not want revolving doors of visitors coming and going in our residential communities. These are supposed to be residential neighborhoods. I live here, I experience the impacts of these properties, and my voice as a neighbor should matter just as much as the voice of an owner asking you to preserve their STR investment. We're not asking for too much. We are asking for our neighbors to remain neighborhoods. In 2022, my parents sold the house I grew up in, the house I gave birth to my son in, because we were simply outgrowing it. We bought a property less than a mile down the road, a property surrounded by three Minnetonka properties. The property we bought had previously been owned by a developer who wanted to turn it into a 13 unit complex. And when we were trying to purchase it as a local working class family, the developer wasn't even willing to come down $5,000 to help us live out our dream. But when we finally got the property, both realtors on both sides of the transaction told us how happy they were that a family had purchased it. The developer's realtor even told us they were ready to drop him as a client if he didn't sell because he was sitting on it for too long. They told us they were relieved it hadn't gone to another developer. They told us they had hope we would hold onto it forever and keep it in our family. They said the original owners must be happy to know that our family has gotten it back in their hands. And when I spoke with Uncle Kai Keahi, he told me that this house was a house that his dad built back in the 1930s. Wow, that is what housing means to me. It's not just a property. It's not just an investment. It's not a line on a spreadsheet. It's a place where a family can put down roots. It's where families and children should grow up. It's something that can stay in our family for generations. That is the kind of housing that we should be protecting and that is why it's so difficult for me to sit here and hear people asking for these properties to remain short-term rentals because their neighbors were allowed to do it and they made it on the list because I'm here as a neighbor too and I'm telling you that I want real neighbors. I want families next door. Even though these things are huge, I know how many people have felt empowered enough to engage in this process and I ask you folks to not make a choice that makes them feel like this process is not worth engaging on. Some are asking why even do this, why come again? The reason is because again, there's no shortage of visitor accommodations, there is a shortage of homes. Our community needs housing, our keiki need housing, our maopuna need housing, our working class families need housing, our displaced families still need housing and our neighborhoods need real neighbors. I respectfully ask the committee to uphold the intended purpose and I am in opposition of these resolutions, mahalo nui.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Do we have any clarifying questions? I think she was very clear. Thank you. We do have a couple, two more testifiers that signed up, but I did want to give the opportunity to those, you folks who have been with us, you guys have been on the list earlier. So if you would like to come, I would happily hear from you and then take the online folks. I think we have two more. Yeah. Online. Okay. Mr. Nikoi, you wanna come down?

Okay, great.

Yes, sir. I'm not happy to be here. You know what I mean? I'm not thanking you guys for me being here, because I piss off that I am here, okay, again. This guy over here, not even one years old, he's been coming to these meetings, okay? And I don't like seeing him, 50 years later, still coming to this meeting, asking for housing, okay? Because somebody didn't bring this up this past weekend, and they told me, You've been coming over here pretty long, that's why. Dude, I remember you testifying for the ILWU for all those hotels on North Kaanapali Beach. And a lot of them was supposed to build these affordable workforce housing for the workers. And a lot of them is on this Minnetonka list. That's me. I was 26 years old when I first came here. Nervous as heck. Wayne Nishiki went cracking me some questions, I was panicking like a mother, you know? But I looked at my ILWU guys, they made me a little bit confident and I had the answer, surprisingly. But what I'm trying to get is that the real reason we're here is because the people that were sitting on this desk The people that is all on those walls, at least half of them, when nobody listen to us. Nobody listen to us. When we wanted to house our locals first. And this short-term rental started coming up. Let me go back a little bit, sorry. I live in a Pelee house. I used to ride my Schwinn bike, because I couldn't afford the mongoose. Down to Honokawai, gonna hang out with my classmates that used to live at all these places on Honokawai, Kahana, like that, and we used to hang out. We used to go to kind, us guys used to hurry up, because the light gonna come on and we get leaking, so we had to leave one hour early. But we even cruise with these guys. So a lot of these hotels was for the people. The residents, the people that live here, sweat here, grew up here. I don't say it is bugger, you know what word I'll use, what you call, coming over here 50 years from now and doing the same damn thing. Okay, guys, I am totally not happy to be here, pissed off. I know I could have testified that last time, The reason why I never, because I want to put here some more of these excuses, only excuses why the short-term rental guy should be on this list and whatnot. H3, H4, get rid of them, okay? Let's go to Bill 9 from the very, very beginning, okay? And no dude, no, don't come up with these amendments. Cut your look. Sorry, I'm throwing your name out. All the guys who want to put in amendments, throw them out there. Tom Cook, your amendments. Alice Lee, her amendments. Yukile Sugimura, her amendments. All these kind of people coming up with amendments. What are we going to do? Keep on getting amendments? Keep on getting 8.5, 8.6, 8.9, 10? That's what it sounds like. That's what it really sounds like. You guys did the thing. Let's go with that, let's just move already. Let's get this thing up, let's get this thing. You hear what he said? He said, yeah, yeah. I'm gonna tell you guys right now, he know the word too, that I'll use. But I tell you guys, don't make the same damn mistake that I heard 50 years ago. Okay, put our local residents back into these short, yeah, keep the short-term rentals, put in workforce housing and all this stuff, because this minotaur list was made to protect us, yeah? And now, all the short-term rental guys that took the damn freaking, oh, yes, I can say that, took the freaking thing off the claim and made them short-term rentals, yeah? All these guys is just talking money, Yeah, all these guys are just talking money. And I'm gonna tell you right now, I should piss off because Airbnb, all these people on the minotaur list, they are, hold on. Me first, buddy, okay? They are, we put money into this campaign for Tom Cook, for Yuki Lee, okay? Gonna come out later on, but you know what I mean? Not until like later on, but I am mad. I say shaking. I say piss off, brah, because why we trying to water down something that not only us, Lahaina guys, you wanna claim it to be only for Lahaina. Not only Lahaina, the whole state. I know a brother who came from Oahu. I know people who flew in from all over for come and testify for this thing, because we need to change it, okay? We need to change it. We need to go back to getting our residents housed. And another big one you guys didn't screw up on, a lot of people here, is that all these housings you guys said you guys gonna build and all these affordable houses, you guys all do this 75% market, 25% affordable. Again, the affordable one is not in perpetuity. The damn thing turn into market real quick. And where the hell we stay? Right where we are today. Shortage of housing. All you guys campaigning about all these things, I like wanna do housing. I like go do this, I like go do that. Well, freaking wake up and listen to us, guys.

Okay, Mr. Nakoi, thank you. Yeah, sorry. That's okay, thank you.

I appreciate the passion. Let me go a little more louder, what I got, sorry.

I think it's adorable how your grandson is the most calmest person and then you on the exact opposite end of the spectrum.

He's adorable. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Rollins-Fernandez, go ahead.

Mahalo, Chair. Mahalo, Mr. Nakua, for your testimony. I was wondering if you remember when you were 26 which properties they were and the condition of those Minnetonka properties or the properties that were supposed to house or did house at one time some of the hotel workforce.

I junk at names. I really junk at names. I'm not joking. I call people by, oh, that guy. So I really don't know. I can see the condo right here in Honokaua because I used to pedal my bike again at that time. But again, 26 years old. I was on hard hit, real hard hit, I still hard hit, but I wasn't really paying attention to what I listening to now. I came here just to testify and then, you know what I mean? But I mean, I know for a fact that at that time, this is what I remember about the thing, the pricing, I don't know. but it was supposed to be, was 50% at that time of the project, of the Kaanapali project that came up to workforce housing. But then later on down the road, it changed to 25%. So that is what I know. I was 26, I was hot-headed. I wasn't coming at these meetings, sitting down the way all day. I don't think none of you guys was. I think, I don't know, maybe some of you guys was. But I, sorry, I don't know the answer for that one.

You like talk.

Thank you. Members, any other clarifying questions?

Thank you so much. Thank you. Bye, baby. Bye.

He's so cute.

Ms. Alipay is next?

Yes, Ms. Alipay is next, and we also have Lauren Regal that signed up and is in person.

Okay, great.

Aloha council members. I probably have clocked hours at this microphone on this specific issue amongst other issues. It doesn't get easier. And today I want to talk to you about my personal story. And that's really difficult for me to do on this microphone because I pretty much can guarantee I'm going to be attacked online for it. but I have no financial investment in the outcome of this bill. My investment in this issue is simply in the preservation of our neighborhoods and our communities and to preserve the path that I walked to own my home for others. That's what it means to be a resident of Maui Nui. We don't do things out of selfish financial interest. We do things because it's the right thing to do. And I have a privilege of being a homeowner today in Makua, what I always dreamed of because of condos like these, that there are amendments to put them into hotel zoning forever. We're closing the door that I used to own my home today. And I can't stand by and watch without saying something because I want my kid to live in my garage for his entire adult life. The future that I see for him is to be able to move out when he graduates from high school or returns from college and live in a condo just like these that people are telling us is not suitable because it's on the ocean and like, My personal journey back home to Maui multiple times has included a condo just like these every single time. When my ohana moved us back from the diaspora when I was starting high school, five of us lived in a studio. When I came home from college, I moved to Waikiki and I lived in a studio with no parking with my best friend, two people. When I moved back from Oregon with my now husband, we lived in my parents' garage for eight months so we could save up and buy a condo in Kihei, one that actually floods quite often. That purchase is what allowed us to start our family. We got married in that house. I brought my newborn home to that house. It's a really beautiful time for me personally. And for all of you to sit here and patronize our people, put us into a box, say we're too poor, we have too many babies, our families are too big. How could we possibly think that we deserve to live an oceanfront property? I went to college in San Francisco and over there they'd call that redlining. And now I'm seeing them use the Slorexa as a redline of where we, we locals are not allowed to live. It's disgusting. It hurts me deeply. Prices fluctuate for all types of reasons. Price should not be a factor in zoning decisions. And if members have concerns about rising HOA fees, infrastructure failures, and insurance costs, then I would love to stand here in support of a bill to address those issues. The resolutions in front of you today do not address that at all. In anything, it exacerbates the problem and continues the mistakes of the past, acting like I guess we haven't learned from it. I would love to see that somehow codified into these resolutions if they're gonna pass regardless. I was here over a year ago when this room was packed to the house for multiple days of people here because they thought you would listen and now look at it. I even, I'm a diehard, all the diehards are still here. And even we are having our friends and our family members tell us, why are you doing this? This is a waste of time. And then to sit here when the high schoolers are here and all of you telling them how wonderful it is to be here because you wanna hear what they have to say. Do you actually want to hear what they have to say? Or are you just gonna nod your head and smile and pretend you're listening while you do whatever you want instead? Because the outside investors seeking to extract profits from our very limited housing supply are complaining louder than us because money is much more easy to listen to than what all of us are begging you to do now. And I'm not saying we shouldn't compromise. I'm just tired of the compromise always coming from our side. When are they gonna compromise for us? You guys did all this work on Bill 9, you did all this work on the TIG, and now you're just throwing it all out. I'm not unreasonable. I don't disagree that certain units, certain buildings should be up zoned to hotel. I agree with a lot of what's on the TIG list. It's these amendments, they're so sneaky. It's what destroys the trust. What's the point? If the point is to wear me down, good job. But we're out here trying to tell people that your voice matters. And you have an opportunity today to reinforce that by rejecting some of these ridiculous proposals that local people can't live on the ocean. And that studios aren't suitable for local people simply because we're all living 10 deep in swaller. It's just disgusting, it's racist. I think this council is asking the wrong questions and prioritizing the wrong things because if the goal is paths to home ownership, I am the case study. and you're shutting the door. If we don't continue to provide all types and all pricing of housing for people, then it's all gonna have to be affordable housing. We're gonna have to have more government assistance in order for people to be able to afford these. And that's why I was against the creation of this H3, H4 zone to begin with. Do I have three more minutes or is that my six?

That was six.

Okay, just one more thing. On the Planning Commission time, I think the Planning Commission has more important things that they should be discussing than continuing this for the next however many years. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? Member Rollins-Fernandez, go ahead.

Mahalo, Chair. For the record and for folks watching this, I would like people to be able to follow along. So could you clarify when you say the amendments, like which amendments are you speaking to?

The amendments that were introduced by Member Cook, Member Lee, and Member Sugimura after the bill was introduced, I would just like for the list to mimic what's on the TIG. And that's like a concession on my part. The amendments that add more properties to the originally introduced resolution. Yes, I don't think we should be adding anymore. We should be trying to preserve as much housing for residents as possible and disincentivizing profit centers.

Mahalo for your response to my question and mahalo for your testimony in this alibi. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. Yep, I see Chair Lee, and then I'm gonna go to you, Member Cook, if you don't mind. Chair Lee, go ahead.

Hello, Ms. Alipay. So going back to the time when we were working on Bill 9, are you saying that it would have been preferable for us to have these discussions at that time? We...

we passed bill nine we should have had these uh the new zoning and the uh exceptions at that time no i think we had those discussions at that time and it's my point of view that the council should be focusing on ways to make as many of these existing properties affordable and accessible for long-term residential use and i think that the The process of trying to exempt them is directly undermining the goal of providing more housing supply for all types of long-term residents.

Didn't you just say that you would have supported including the recommendations of the TIG

In Bill 9? Yes, that's an attempt at compromise. I actually testified against the creation of the zone because I was afraid of exactly this type of legislation that is using it to open the floodgates to remove more potential housing supply from the housing market and into the short-term rental investment market. And so yes, my position is personally that none of these should be up zoned, but I understand that what I want personally is not necessarily what's realistic or what's going to happen here. And I understand the makeup of this council means that I'm probably not gonna get what I want. So I'm willing to concede on certain issues, to benefit the larger community, because like I said before, I don't have financial investment in any of this.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Member Cook.

Thank you for your testimony. You mentioned that you had the opportunity, when you bought your condominium, it was the opportunity for you to buy a future home in Mockwell. Would you share what you paid for that and what you sold it for? Was that help?

I don't actually remember the exact number, but I think we bought it for somewhere around 300 something thousand and sold it for around 400 something thousand. But the HOA rules in that particular condom restricted It disallowed short-term vacation renting, and I think that that's the only reason at the time we were able to afford that condo. At the time, the advice given to us by realtors, and I think most realtors would say this, is that when you're a first-time homeowner, you need to separate your wants from your needs, and our only needs at that time were a roof over our head and a place that would allow my dog. It did also only have one parking space, for the record, since that's become a major talking point here. And compared to other real estate on the market at that time, it was significantly more affordable than everything else. We thought we could be Kihei people, but I'm a country girl at heart, so that is eventually why we sold it, because we had an opportunity to move back up country closer to my parents. But yes, being able to buy that condo and then sell it is, and also like paying a lower amount of mortgage than we would be renting and all of that realtor math is definitely what allowed us to, in addition to help from parents and whatnot, is what allowed us to buy our starter home, sell it when we outgrew it, it didn't fit our needs anymore, and then to invest in hopefully our forever home in Mockwell.

Well, thank you for sharing that and congratulations on that.

Thank you very much. Members, any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for being with us. Thank you. I think we have Ms. Rego, and then we're going to do our last two online members. Thank you. I'm assuming, I've just been assuming majority of you are testifying on both? Okay, great, thank you.

Aloha Housing and Land Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I wanna start by pointing out the flaw of the process we're being asked to participate in today. There are, I think, 26 properties being proposed for permanent upzoning to hotel use, and the public has been given six minutes to testify. I do have thoughts on each property, but that would work out to less than 15 seconds per property. Less than 15 seconds to discuss the permitting history, occupancy history, infrastructure, shoreline conditions, housing potential, and long-term consequences of permanently converting each property from residential to hotel use. These are not minor housekeeping amendments. These are permanent land use decisions. We're talking about potentially removing residential housing from our community forever during a local housing shortage, not a shortage of visitor accommodations. Trying to rush the process for 26 hotel upzonings and community plan amendments at once is a misuse of all of our time. Decisions of this magnitude deserve individual scrutiny, individual findings, and meaningful opportunities for the public to participate. And using the shoreline or flood zone concerns as a blanket justification for hotel zoning simply does not make sense. If the argument is that these properties are inappropriate for residential use because of shoreline hazards, then I would argue they are even more dangerous for tourists. Who is taking care of these guests in the face of disaster? Their off-island hosts? No, it's our local community. But let's be clear, we don't really believe these properties in Makai of South Kihei Road are in danger of coastal erosion anytime soon. We know from the Lahaina fire that the county is going to defend the roads. In the meantime, how many generations can live in these units until the year 2100? My nine-year-old daughter will be 82. Her children could have children who have children. Meanwhile, the average length of ownership of a Minnetonka unit when we started this conversation was something like five to seven years. Anyway, it's clear for the bulk of these properties this free-for-all undermining of Bill 9 is not truly about coastal erosion because changing the zoning designation from residential to hotel does not move a building away from the ocean. More visitors on the shoreline doesn't somehow make it safer. If shoreline safety is a true concern, then address the shoreline comprehensively for the whole island, as Member Patonga astutely recommended in one of his first meetings on this council. or take these up one at a time on a case-by-case basis as they deserve. Instead, we're fast-tracking blanket hotel zoning and community plan amendments along the shoreline, undermining what the community decided they wanted for their own place, and locking tourism use into these properties for our children's children's children to deal with for the sake of 96% non-resident investment owners. And we know where that road leads. We will be long gone, leaving our children's children's children to inherit the same fights we are having today against HOA attorneys and Airbnb lobbyists at the legislature and the courts and before the BLNR, fighting for shoreline hardening, seawalls, tea groins, and other measures intended to protect increasingly valuable oceanfront development. Ms. Nishiki testified earlier about the voluntary buyback bills at the legislature, but what she didn't get a chance to say is why those bills die. Because the wealthy owners have the funding to hire the corporate lobbyists who live in the hallways of the state capitol. We should not be fast-tracking another giveaway of the shoreline to bad actors who don't live here, who block local access, and are really just serving as the marketing arm of the real estate industry, who are always looking for their next offshore investor. and we certainly should not dump 26 complicated land use decisions onto an already incredibly busy volunteer planning commission and call that meaningful review. I believe half the properties added to this list weren't even included on exhibit two from the TIG where supposedly these properties were discussed in thoughtful detail. Mass upzoning is not thoughtful planning and permanent land use decisions that could eliminate housing opportunities for generations should never be made simply because processing them individually would take more time. We've done that before and look where we landed. I urge you to remove these shoreline properties from consideration for permanent exemption. Do I have any time left? How many? A minute for 26 properties, okay. Island Sands, 1973, got their permits as residential, no mention of transient use. Ma'alaiakai, those are mostly two-bedroom, two-bath, not small units. Kihe Bay Surf, we've got them listed on the market for under 300,000. Kihe Bay Vista, in 1989, residential, no variances to the zoning code. Lokelani, 1971, residential, can be rented but not for a trade or business. 1968, residential apartments, no mention of transient or hotel. Peikake and Haleikaiwan, only as private dwelling units, no mention of transient or hotel occupancy. Ma'alaiabanians, 1977, uses only private dwellings, no other purpose. Let's see. Kahana Reef, 1973, only as private dwellings for owners, tenants, guests, service, no other purpose. No Honani, particularly egregious. No apartment shall be rented for transient or hotel purposes. Makani Sands, 1973, restricted use to residential, not operating as a business. No Ilani, 1974, occupied and used by the owners and no other purpose. Hoyochi Niko, 1973, residential apartments. Today, the VRBO listings are welcoming long-term tenants.

Did I do it?

Okay, Paul.

You're speed reading. Do you mind emailing your testimony to us as we typically ask of you? Yeah, I'll do that. So I'm trying to take notes at the end. Yeah. Do you mind? Oh yeah. No, that's okay. Thank you. And then members, does anybody else have any clarifying questions? I'm Brown's finance. Go ahead. Mahalo chair.

Um, so just to clarify and, um, I know that chair asked, um, for the, sorry, I'm trying to finally grab my notes. Um, if you can email some of the notes. And you have emailed your notes to us. You've emailed two very full, aesthetically beautiful reports to us. In your really quick synopsis of the 26 properties, I heard you hit on the original intended use, the occupancy, and price. Bedroom size.

On one of them, I think I said two bedroom, two bath.

Okay, okay. And I think... Mahalo for that information, because I think as we're transmitting that information, it's information that we can recommend for the Planning Commission to also consider. So mahalo for emailing that information to us before, and then again today. Mahalo, Ms. Rego. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you. Seeing no other clarifying questions. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. And then let's go back to our online testifiers, please.

So the first testifier is the Andre Makakoa to be followed by Sarah.

Sounds great.

Aloha. Can you hear me?

We can. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, Aloha chair and council. I appreciate the opportunity to share. Um, Like others have stated, though, I do not really appreciate having to come back and reiterate the same things over and over. I'm currently trying to recover from the storms, but choke eucalyptus tree branches falling in my yard. I got a chainsaw right next to me, but I've been plugged into this because I feel it is important to engage. And I just want to state that our local people are so over and undated by just trying to survive here that we spend all of our free time running errands to survive and not enjoying this place that we grew up in and whatever free time we managed to muster up is spent here advocate advocating for a better future. But I went homeless at 16 years old. My mom was priced out of paradise, right? And she moved to Klaxonite, Oregon. And then my father fell into drug addiction right after. So I lived with an auntie and then an uncle. I cycled through sleeping at different friends' houses. And then eventually my ex's mom took me in and let me live with them so I could finish high school and then get accepted to college. I worked super hard. I have built two successful businesses. One had to be dissolved after the fire in which I lost my home. My late 20s were spent learning to become an entrepreneur. I read all the books like Rich Dad, Poor Dad, Millionaire Next Door, Total Money Makeover, all that stuff. I know the mindset of these passive income investors because I studied it for years. I tried to become that. But I decided, what if people took that Well, and first of all, a lot of it comes from a certain level of systemic privilege, but we'll just ignore that for now. What if people took that superhuman level of work ethic that it takes to turn something into nothing, that grit and grind mindset that can allow you to take that leap of faith? What if people took that and put it to the benefit of society and our community rather than only doing it for yourself and your own family? Because our Kiki are leaving. Our families who lived in these islands for generations are being priced out of the very homes that their ancestors built. What used to be starter homes or retiree housing is now unstaffed vacation rentals. When I was in college, four friends from high school and I, so five people, moved into a two-bedroom, one-bath apartment with one parking stall. Two people per bedroom and one guy on the couch. And then even more people would sleep over after social kind gatherings. But our neighbors on the left were other college students. And then our neighbor on the right was an elderly woman who lived alone, so we just told her, leave her trash outside and we would take it to the dumpster for her. It was a community in that apartment building. And right now, we're standing at the point, we're at the precedence of change, where change needs to happen, where our leaders must decide if they're going to take bold steps in the right direction for our people, your people. The intent of apartment zone buildings were meant for residential housing and not for commercial use. It was primarily for young professionals to begin their lives and for olders to settle into retirement. And the historical documents prove this because many of them explicitly forbade hotel use or transient rentals when they were built. Yet over decades, online platforms like VRBO and Airbnb turned them into commodities. The real cost... is not just affordable housing. We need housing. We need mid-tier housing as well. We need that just as much for holistic market correction because we need our retirees to move out of the family homes and into these condos, these smaller units, so that our families who are starting out and need more space have places to move into. Our young families cannot afford to live where they grew up. They're forced to move to the continent, leaving their ohana and their culture behind. And our community fought so hard for this. We've seen historic records of public engagement because our local people know that we are at this drastic... We're at this point in time where we're about to lose our people forever. And the speculative investors will move on to the next spot. But we will suffer the consequences of your actions or lack thereof. And right now we are exporting our own people at a disgustingly alarming rate. And the justification for not changing is because we need tourism dollars. But if the tourism economy is more important than our people's ability to live here, then we're already too far gone. And one last thing, the institution of slavery and its byproducts formed the single largest economic engine in the world at one point, and it still had to come to an end. Because no, you do not have the right to make a profit on the suffering of others. This commodification of our housing industry is profiting off of our land and our resources while we struggle to get by. Mahalo nui for your time.

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

The next testifier is Sarah, to be followed by Christine Deek. Sarah, you are enabled.

Hi, can you hear me now? We can hear you. It's a little soft. We're going to turn it up on our end, but if you could maybe move closer to the mic. Thank you.

I'm right outside. I'm not coming in person, okay? I'll be right inside if you want to take the next testifier. We'll do that.

Thank you. Yep. We'll take the next testifier, please.

The next testifier is Christine Deak on Teams, and you are enabled on our end.

Hello, can you hear me?

We can hear you, thank you.

Okay, hi, my name is Christine Dayock and I just wanna speak on the no Hunani. I just wanna correct something that was said just a couple of testifiers ago. A couple testifiers ago, someone said that the original documents of the Hunani said no transient rentals That's not the case. That was a draft document and the actual final one from way back 19 early 70s. I don't know the exact date, but the the final document that was recorded with the county does not contain that language in it and I just wanted to clarify that and it's been short term rental. the whole time from the outset. So I just wanted to make that clarification and our board did provide some documentation and written testimony and it has the exact language in there from the outset. That is not the same as what the testifiers said. So just wanna make that clear. Yes.

Thank you. Member Johnson, go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Miss. Is it DIAC?

Yeah, close enough.

DIAC, yeah. DIAC. What was the reason for the change? Was there any explanation given?

This is old originating documents back in early 70s. Why did they change it? No one knows why it was changed, but the original document strip that language the one that was final does not contain any of that language and that was the the document that was filed with the county recorder's office if you go to the county recorder's office and look at that original documentation there's no prohibition to short term rentals and in fact there's actual language and they're saying that there shall be no restriction on the length or I don't know exactly the wording but that would be in the documentation that would be put in by written testimony did they keep minutes of their meetings or anything is there any way to research what why this is before that they even this is before they even sold any units to any of the people but we do have documentation that the um um all but one i believe of the properties were sold to off island um people at the time it's in all of the documentation that was submitted We do have documentation on who purchased the units.

I understand that. You mentioned that several times. I was just trying to find out what the impetus was, what was the reason why. But if you don't know it, that's fine. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Chair.

I don't know. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, is there any other clarifying questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you. I know we have the one other person coming up. Hopefully they come soon. Elevator's broken, both sides? Okay, I know yesterday we had one side that was broken. I know, then we'd be all winded. Okay, let's take a two minute recess then and then we'll give her some time to come up and then we'll finish testimony in a bit. Okay, it is 1254, come back at 1256, thank you. Welcome back to the HLU committee. It is 1258 and we are gonna hear from testifier named Sarah.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. I know you took a little break to accommodate me as I huffed up the stairs, so I appreciate that. I'm here to kind of present a counter opinion. I am a local resident here in Maui. My husband was born here, my children are born at Maui Memorial. I can bring my two-year-old daughter, she's adorable, I could plop her right here as well. But there are a lot of local residents who are being hurt by this bill, especially in the units that are not being moved over into the H3 or H4 zoning. I've been looking at the real estate data. There's some condos that have been selling in the 200s. That's the goal, right? You guys want these condos to come down in price so they are attainable for the local population. If you look at who's selling in the 200s, there's two at Kalama Terrace that just sold this past month. they were sold by local residents at a loss. So they bought them maybe five or six years ago at I think it was like 290, and then they ended up selling them at like 240. So local residents are losing money on this. And I agree, like housing is great. I know Tom Cook has mentioned that we should be using the tax money that comes from these units to build affordable units. My unit hasn't been moved over into resolution yet. I do feel that it applies to this particular resolution because with the sea level rise at 3.2 feet, all roads coming in and out in the parking lot is covered by the blue, the SLR XA, is that what it is? Sea level rise XA. When I look at it on there, sorry, I'm still out of breath from coming up the stairs. And for myself, my family, I'm a nurse. I shouldn't be wearing this seal right now in front of this because I'm not acting in an official capacity right now, but I came over from my office. I'm a community health nurse here. My husband, he's rebuilding a home in Lahaina for his friend who lost it on August 8th. So we are ingrained in the community and our particular unit, like we bought it for our children to have a future. And we're negative, like 100,000 on it if we were to try to sell, like we're underwater on it. And I don't think we're the only local residents in that situation. So I'm just here to say thank you. You know reiterate like this is kind of a slap in the face to some of the professional individuals or people who I don't want to say professional individuals because there's I don't want to distinguish like that. But. There are people here in Maui, local people, and they're being harmed by their units not being moved over into these resolutions. I am in support of these resolutions. I wish my unit was on it, but right now it's not. I just think that there would be better ways to attain local housing because these units have operated in this capacity for 50 years. I never would have bought one if I thought that immediately it would be you know, brought down in value $100,000. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Members, any clarifying questions? I see Chair Lee has a question for you. Chair Lee, you're muted still though.

I stepped away for a while, so I didn't hear the beginning of your testimony, but what is the name of your building, your unit?

The one that we own, we bought in 2024 and we purchased at Kihei Gardens Estate.

Kihei Gardens, okay. Yeah, and you're not in the Slorexa, right?

The roads leading into like Uluniu Road and Lepoa Road, both of them are completely covered in water and it goes up to the parking lot.

I see. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Member Johnson.

Just a real quick question to clarify. You're doing short-term rental in Kihei Gardens. Did I hear that correctly?

That's correct.

Okay. All right. Thanks so much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you for your time. Is that our last testifier?

That's the last one, so we'll do a last call for oral testimony. If anyone would like to testify, please come to the podium or raise your hand on teams and staff will enable you. The count is three, two, one. Seeing none, Chair, no one has indicated that they wish to testify.

Thank you, members. Seeing there are no individuals wishing to testify, without objection, I will now close oral testimony. No objections? No objections. Thank you. And as a reminder, written testimony will continue to be accepted. I would like to just do a quick discussion because that's what we need to and then take our lunch. So if it's okay with you guys, this is how I see maybe the rest of our day playing out. Member Batongan has to leave at 4.30. Is that okay with everyone to end this meeting at 4.30? Member Palten also has to leave at 4.30. Tom, you can stay until 4.30. Member Johnson, can you stay until 4.30?

I have to leave at 2.30, Chair.

Okay, okay, heard. Are you able to stay until 4.30? I'm able to stay until 4.30, Chair. Okay, thank you. Member Sugimura, are you able to stay until 4.30?

So I have to be someplace at 4.30, so I might leave a little bit around there.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you. What I'm hoping to do right now is take a lunch break, return... When would you guys like to return? At 2? Is that okay for you guys to return at 2? Yeah, okay. And then I would like to discuss criteria when we come back at two. We don't necessarily have to exhaust that discussion because we will be leaving at 4.30, but I would like to begin the conversation with what we envision for criteria as it relates to these properties. Member Palten.

I was considering also not just criteria but conditions. And because this isn't the, it's the point where we send it to the Planning Commission and not, where we vote on it. I didn't want to put conditions on, but I would love for conditions to be included in the committee report for the Planning Commission to consider, if that makes sense. Like not that I'm putting it on now, but because they're like, by coastal zone management laws, the authority in the special management area designation, some of my thoughts on conditions and to clarify that they wouldn't be exhaustive, like I'm not saying don't add any other conditions except for these, but just the ones that I've thought of.

Okay, yeah, absolutely. Let's do that when we come back from lunch at two until 4.30. And then maybe I need to talk to you because I think you've commandeered a lot of our time coming up for the... South Maui community plan on how we need to move forward, because I don't think we'll finish having our conversation today, but we'll talk story after, so we can understand how this meeting will end and what we'll need to do to continue the conversation.

I did take from September 14th in the evening. Okay. If you wanted the daytime.

Okay, I'll talk it over with staff during lunch. That's efficient conversation, yeah, for us too. Okay, great. We will come back at two o'clock. You okay to come back at two o'clock? Okay. It is 1.07 right now and we will see you back at two o'clock. We are now in recess. Welcome back, everyone. It is 2.11. We finished testimony before we took lunch, and right now we are going to begin the discussion related to criteria and... conditions um before we really get hot and heavy in discussion i wanted to bring up that if in case we don't finish we have potentially planned to recess until september 8th or 9th and i wanted you guys to have an opportunity to check your calendars um before we just like throw it at you at the end of the day eight and nine don't forget asac Yes, it's right before HSOC. But if not, then we would go over our two-week recess period. So I appreciate everyone kind of looking at their schedule. So you don't think we can finish today, huh? I don't know. I mean, I just wanted to kind of throw that out there so that we could come up with a comprehensive criteria before we send it to Planning Commission. But I just wanted to let you guys know, if we don't finish, then that's my plan to recess it to one of those days, preferably the 8th. But you might have to switch around. What was that? You like the 9th? Okay, that's fine. We can do the 9th. Member Palten, you okay with the 9th if we do have to recess?

I could do either day, just I have some things to move around on the 8th.

Okay, let's just strive for the 9th then. Member Patonga, you okay on the 9th?

Yep, can do 9th.

Okay. Member Rollins-Fernandez, you still looking at your schedule? Let me ask the people online. Okay, Gabe, you okay? Thank you. Member Johnson, you okay? Chair Lee, you okay? Member Sugimura, you okay on the ninth? Okay, okay. Member Rollins-Fernandez, how are you doing on the ninth?

I'll check. Okay, so I think, because we have H-SAC on the 10th and 11th, so I'm going to be leaving my kids. Would we be able to do it at 10? Yeah. And then that way I can fly in that way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, let's do it at 10. Okay. 10 on the 9th. Okay, great. Easy peasy. That way I can not rush to when I'm dropping off my children as well. All good. That's great for me. Okay. So we do have a lot of properties to discuss, but I wanted to discuss some criteria before we discuss the individual properties. Um, I'm happy to take this as however it works for everyone. The criteria I had in my mind, and we can continue to discuss them, were creating, or moving properties rather, that had structures fully inundated in the Slorexa, properties in the flood area. And that's what I was going to go with. I know that we all have our own versions of what that looks like. Um, but that was mine. I also wanted to ask, um, both planning and court counsel. So, and I'm gonna struggle as I try to explain myself, but bear with me. So, Obviously, these structures are old. The structurally sound portion of the building is not necessarily what I'm gonna talk about right now, even though that is a concern of mine. But a lot of these are existing nonconforming structures to begin with. So that's not my concern is having them up to current code. But how do we move it to like current zoning requirements? Like I put in our resolution to be um, subject to the shoreline rules and SMA rules and our shoreline rules require access to the shoreline. Is that need to be specifically stated or how does that work when we have like older buildings with older structures of how these properties operate and then our new laws, how do they overlap and intertwine? Are they applicable or does it need to be explicitly stated?

So I think I'm understanding the question correctly.

Um, I think I said it correctly and if not, I will, I'll try my best.

And for the structures that are already there, it would essentially just be nonconforming. Still, if there are specific requirements, uh, that you'd like that are newer requirements, they, we'd have to look at it being, uh, condition of zoning probably. Uh, but there's, depending on what it is, there's different legal analysis. So I'd have to know what the intent was to give better advice.

Okay. So like, Right now, to our shoreline rules, we require shoreline access. These properties are subject to require public shoreline access, regardless, or does it need to be specifically stated?

I think it would depend. Are you talking about properties that currently impede shoreline access or something, or?

Anyone, but sure, let's go with ones that maybe impede shoreline access with our new shoreline rules. And these structures were permitted before those shoreline rules, how do we get them to conform to our new kind of zoning requirements that's outside of like our building requirements, our building code requirements?

So if it's a situation where there is like an access way that we think should be a beach access way, that would probably, need, I'd have to look into it more. It would probably need to be like a condition or, yeah, I'd have to look into it more. If there was nothing existing there, then it would be addressed by the new rules since they'd have to go in for an SMA application if they were trying to do something to cut off that access way.

Okay, okay. You have until the eighth. No, I'm sorry, the ninth. Okay. Do you think that needs to be then? Oh, I guess we can continue to talk about it if it needs to be explicitly. Like I did, I put it in the reso already. Good to go? Okay, great. I don't think, at least for me, I had too many other questions related to, I asked my shoreline, I said I prefer structures fully inundated in Slorexa or flood. Oh, I was gonna ask you, Ana, for flood, but I forgot they left you folks. Okay.

That's what I have. Chair Lee.

Could you include erosion hazard line too?

Sure. Can you explain? Go ahead, Ana. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the question, Council Member Lee. So the Slorexa at the 3.2 level is already inclusive of the erosion hazard line at the 3.2 level. So by including Slorexa 3.2, you are including Erosion Hazard Line 3.2.

Okay, great, thank you.

Chair, can she explain what the Erosion Hazard Line is?

Yes, thank you.

So I will caveat by saying that I'm not with our wonderful partners at UHC grant, but the erosion hazard line, as I understand it, is the projection of within the 3.2 sea level rise scenario where the land will be taken away or eroded by the natural action of the ocean.

Go ahead, we're in discussion, please go ahead, we all have four minutes. Oh, okay, is it my turn for four minutes?

Okay, you know, and then so that's where it's expected to erode away, is that when, I guess I was wondering, you know, how sometimes it says except for a buildable area, does the erosion hazard line have to be, does the buildable area have to be Malka of the erosion hazard line?

Not necessarily. So within the Maui planning commission rules where they have adopted the 3.2, um, erosion hazard line as the regulatory shoreline, um, you are still given a minimum buildable depth of 40 by 40 within that, um, uh, 3.2 area so that you have like a minimum buildable still usable area of your land within the erosion hazard line 40 feet by wide by 40 feet long correct and what if your certified shoreline how does that play into it so if you would still so if you're um if you have a certified shoreline and you're the state certification comes back that your minimum buildable depth is within the erosion hazard line, you would be required to get a shoreline setback variance on top of the SM-1 or whatever applicable.

What is the regular shoreline setback if you didn't have a variance?

So the state 40 foot is the state's area in which they would like nothing to be built. And so we would just apply the heaviest standards to reviewing a variance that would be within the state 40 foot minimum, state 40 foot setback. And there are things that have been permitted within the state's 40 foot, but it's very rare and it's held to the higher standards of review and public need usually is typically used for those purposes.

Okay, and then I think my next question is for Nuhulu. One of the testifiers mentioned about liability about holding the county harmless. Is that a thing? Like if we're gonna say like these shoreline properties could be used for hotel use, would it be possible for like a... transient visitor to say you put us in a dangerous position because you knew it was in a slur X and then sue the county. I mean, anybody can sue whatever, but would they have a case, I guess, or would it be likely?

It's hard to really anticipate that question. Normally, I think what they were talking about is when we have SMA conditions, we usually have a hold harmless as part of that.

Is that something that would apply to this as like a hold harmless policy for the conversion?

I think that sort of goes back to the considerations about adding conditions of zoning, so let me look.

Put that in my list, include it, because I'm not trying to add conditions at this point, just like consideration of conditions for the Planning Commission, who is the, ultimate authority in the Coastal Zone Management Act for the special management area?

Yeah, I think in this case, because we don't have a requirement elsewhere, we'd have, if we wanted it to be binding, then we'd have to have it as a condition, but I have to look into it more, because there's some nuances with existing structures and adding conditions of zoning there.

Okay, I'm done for now. I can come back around to my next turn.

Okay. Member Johnson, I saw your hand up. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I have to leave for my second meeting, as you guys are already aware. I'm sorry. And if you allow, I just have one question. I'm trying to find what the nexus of the SolarXR is and why some of these units should be on the amended bob version of bill 9 what difference does it make if you're in the selects or not i i want i would think the assumption would be like how many short-term rental units are in the appropriate area or um the original intent of the building and you know like a lot of testifiers brought up the old historical records wouldn't that weigh more on the decision than whether where your

uh building is located maybe the lawyer can speak on that i don't incorporate council i'm curious of what the nexus oh can i answer that real quick and then you can answer if you don't mind so when we were discussing the tag um if when we reviewed your original documents for the properties that had original documents if you were originally created for workforce housing regardless if you fell into the criteria we didn't add you on we discussed that in the tag um Slorexa and both flood pose an extra cost on the unit. And then it's also difficult to permit if you're trying to fix. And it is a little bit different in my head, because I grew up next to the shoreline, right? So it's not like I don't think our local people belong there, I grew up on the shoreline. It's a concern about, purchasing a unit that the life expectancy is quite short. And I know that we have a different opinion on when that life expectancy is going to end, but when these structures are older to begin with already, and then you have to do a permit, let's say to go redo your plumbing, if you're on your personal house, like a singular structure, like what I grew up on on the beach, you can go get a permit. You do have to get your building permit and then your SMA permit, and sometimes even a flood permit, considering we're talking about flood. Those do take probably an added year, Ana, would you say, as a review? Depending on the cost, obviously, if it's an SMA-1, an SMA minor, or an exemption.

But if you're looking at an SMA-1, we would say a year is typical, yes.

which is what all of these structures are probably going to go through is the SMA one process.

If they were to be rebuilt. Yes, chair.

Yes. Or even if they were to do like a big renovation, um, the threshold is 500,000.

Within the shoreline, it is 500,000 outside of... So the erosion hazard line is closer Makai than typically the 3.2 slow REXA or sea level rise exposure area. So if you were outside of the 3.2 erosion hazard line, to trigger an SM1, it'd be 750,000. 750? Yes.

So when you're dealing with, which is a lot of money except when you've got to start trenching and then when you got to start trenching, it's the cost adds up quick. Right now construction is at its all time high. Just two days ago our president decided to get in a tariff war with Canada. So now our lumber is more expensive, right? As if it wasn't more expensive to begin with. So those are the considerations we discussed about creating a space for local people to take all of their harder and savings and try to buy. I think I said this the last time, but if I didn't, in my head, and we sort of discussed this in the TIG too, I am trying to figure out how people can buy these units, not necessarily rent, because this body right here does a really good job at creating affordable rentals, whether they... are actually affordable is sometimes up for debate, but we do a really good job at creating affordable rentals that are brand new, that are not in decrepit buildings, that face this additional challenges, more of a cost burden than like, proximity to the ocean although i love the proximity to the ocean it does come with an extra cost and i'm sorry i took up your time but i was trying to answer it if you want no hulu to answer before you go he can do an expedited quick answer if you want i i have to go chair but you know remember you're talking to a guy who was living in section 8 housing before i took this job so i know as well uh what's it like to live in these units you know so um

Okay, I have to go. I appreciate your response. And of course, there'll be plenty of time for me to discuss more. Thank you, members.

And then we will see you at least back in this committee having this discussion on the 9th at 10.

Yeah, my calendar looks good, but I'm curious why you wouldn't just do it at your regular scheduled meeting. You have something else on the agenda.

I do. We already have something on the agenda. And then we're going to go into South Maui Community Plan. Thank you.

All right. I know. I know.

We're so excited.

Yeah. So busy.

Yeah.

Thank you, members. Thank you.

Bye, Member Johnson. Okay. Does anybody else have any discussion related to potential criteria or conditions? I know Member Palten, you had conditions. Member Cook, do you want to discuss any potential criteria on your end? Which we also didn't vote on mine. I just stated what I wanted, by the way.

Yeah. I appreciate your explanation. I just wanna clarify my explanation for the properties are looking, I'm more familiar with my district. A lot of them are masonry structures on sand foundations. Many of them have, either have or will be relining all their cast iron sewer lines that are underneath the building. Fortunately, with the new technology, it's possible to reline them and add another 20 or 30 years to it. It's expensive and problematic, but it's possible. I'm going to circle back to my feeling that a relatively new structure for a family, singles, families, or whoever is a preference. The cost of a lot of these places are already baked in.

Yes.

escalated costs when they were bought to now, maintenance costs, HOA fees, and I've hired a lot of potential creative ways to mitigate that, but I don't look at them, I've gone a lot in my area, I don't see them as great places for families to invest in and not basically be able to benefit over the long time. renting maybe if they could afford it. So that's why, for me, the properties that are quote in the SLRSA, higher maintenance costs, older buildings, desirable to live in but not possibly to own and invest. So that's my two cents.

Thank you. Member Palten, does anybody else have any other? Okay, Chair Lee.

Clarifying question for Member Cook, because you're asking for criteria, right? So what exactly is yours?

Clarify what my criteria is?

Yeah, like in one phrase.

My criteria is that the properties in the SLRESA are older, higher maintenance,

no but we already covered that that's already covered right well i'm just already covered i'm just clarifying and i tried to be brief my criteria and discussing the solarissa was that and i'm listening to everybody else's opinion oh because in other words in other words the slorexa was mentioned and i asked about the erosion hazard line but actually nobody talked about the FEMA flood insurance rate map. Is that what you were driving at or not?

Nohe talked about the flood insurance hazard map. Nohe, the chair of this committee.

Oh, okay, so you had two. Not only the Slorexa and the flood zone. Yes, and the flood. Oh, that is the flood zone.

That's on the bottom half of the paper here.

Mm-hmm, the two properties in Kihei.

See this one?

Okay, okay.

So we have three, three criteria.

Yeah, it's the structure, at least mine. So I only propose this as this is what I'm comfortable with, but I was wanting to hear, and I appreciate you asking, Charlie, what you folks are comfortable with. So in my head, our criteria starts with structures fully inundated in the Slorexa and structures and properties in the flood hazard zones.

Okay. And that would include the erosion hazard line as, um, yeah. Yeah.

You suggested that. Um, those are on a, is there a big that's erosion hazard line is coming in and then starts as a bit more outside of the boundary. So whatever's in the slur XO is already in the erosion hazard line.

That is exactly correct. Sure.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Member Sugimura.

No, you got that one backwards. Whatever's in the erosion hazard line is in the slorexa, right?

Yes, yes, but like in my head, if you're standing.

Because you could be in the slorexa but not in the erosion hazard line.

Yeah. See, this is why. The erosion hazard line. Is on the shoreline, yeah.

Yeah, it's Makai.

Yeah, it's more Makai, right? Everything Makai of that could be lost to erosion. Slorexa is further out, yes. Yeah, that was in my head. I was trying to pretend like I was standing at the beach. One is on this end and one is on that. Thank you. Member Sugimura.

Thank you. So you're speaking of criteria. So based upon the amendments that I came up with, I used your criteria. So I don't really have anything to add, but I just wanted to say that when we take up mine. Thanks.

Thank you. My plan was to discuss criteria. It depends on how today goes, if we have to recess or not. We were gonna discuss criteria, agree to criteria, take a quick break, and then me and my, me and our HRU committee staff, these wonderful soldiers, brain soldiers, are gonna just like double, triple check. And then when we come back in, then we'll be like, okay, here's all the ones that conform. Not saying it doesn't right now, but we were just going to, you know, double, triple check everybody's criteria as this, it could change right now. Thank you, Member Sugimura. Go ahead, Member Patonga.

Thank you, Chair. And so can I confirm that this is, criteria only for RESO 26129, meaning the sea level rise. So we are not talking about the criteria that's gonna be universal to all of the properties that we're considering for H3H4 conversion. These are only the ones unique to those in the shoreline exposure area.

Pretty much. So we do have some that overlap, but if they kind of better fit in another category, we did leave it in those. Like we probably have a couple in the Slorexa that we have already passed out with the other Rezo.

Yeah, I guess I was just trying to figure out whether or not we needed to restate here, you know, whether or not the original documents or permits allowed for the use, you know, those kind of things. But if it's just for Resol 26129, then I don't have anything else to add.

Okay. I am going to have Member Cook talk about his in a bit after we discuss, like, the criteria for this one. Yeah.

No. We're not talking about 26, 130 at this time. Not yet. You'll let us know when that's appropriate.

Sure, yes. I think we're gonna vote on these and then we can move on to 130. But right now we're discussing potential criteria for 129. But does anybody, do we need to vote on the criteria or we can just come up with this consensus? I'm not saying everybody's cool with it. I'm just asking you how we need to go about this. Happy to take that vote.

Yes, Chair, I think a vote might be preferable over like a consensus type of thing.

Okay, great. Go ahead, Member Cook.

If we're gonna vote, I wanna read a couple of things as far as like what I think the more formally the criteria would be. I thought we were just more just talking story. I didn't know we were getting ready for a vote.

Oh yeah, we were discussing criteria.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, but you're welcome to go ahead and add yours.

One of the criteria that I've been looking at is in the planning department's correspondence dated August 5th, 2026, the department attached a letter from former planning director, Michelle McLean, to council member paulton dated november 5th 2020 identifying 59 tvr properties in the apartment district that are in the 3.2 foot sea level rise exposure area and that's one of the criteria for some of the properties that i'm proposing was the letter from the planning department um

Was there anything specific? Are you talking about this right here, number eight that was on Granicus? Or what number? Okay.

Chair, if I can add, when I proposed that legislation, all the testimony was that's an arbitrary line, and I don't know what I'm talking about, and they don't believe in the Slarexa. So I proposed that legislation at that time, and that was the feedback that we got in testimony.

I just thought that it was a point of reference that the planning department was identifying those properties at that time.

Yeah, and you should check the testimony on what all the public said about it. Okay, thanks.

They did let me know that this was already done for Member Paltin, which is why I asked for it to be included as well, so we could see the difference between what's been fully covered, what's mostly covered, and what's only partially covered, and some that are not covered. It was for reference for the most part, so we could have this list to help make our decision.

It is number 17. Oh, 17.

Okay, thank you. Did you have anything else? Oh, sorry. Okay, Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Mahalo chair. Okay, so I have a question. I don't know who it would be for. One of our resource folks, if you can help me with this question. And while I don't think it'll be our responsibility in the future, people have a tendency to try to make things our responsibility, county's responsibility, or to ask for funding, which also then makes it our responsibility. So we talk about insurance going up. But as we see in some places like Florida, there are properties, there are places and areas that are just uninsurable. So then I imagine these properties, the complexes would then come to county, come to government for some kind of help. So in doing this, I don't know, I guess kind of connected to Mr. Paulson's question about liability, and not necessarily we'd be liable by up-zoning these properties to hotel. I don't know, I don't have a question completely formed, I guess. I just, I see what's happening in other places and I see it happening here with the hurricanes. and then the back-to-back Kona Lo. So it's not just happening from the ocean side, it's also happening from the mountain side. And it affected Kihei Vista, what was that one? The one that got completely damaged. What is that one called, that property? Anyway, that one, that was on the news. Oh, there was a couple, okay. So it's happening more and more from both ends, both sides, both ocean, mountain. And I know they're going to want the county to help them. So, yeah. Those are my comments, I guess. Do you have comments based on the comments?

What can we do, right?

Yeah, I think.

Knowing that that's gonna happen. What can we do? Moving forward, we're making this decision today. on these criteria, knowing that this is going to happen in the future. And then we keep talking about it like it's way distant in the future. And I know the Slorexa is like 2100, but we're already seeing properties being condemned, not from sea level rise, but from mud floods combined with wave action.

There you go.

Yeah, it sounds like there's a number of questions related to sort of potentially adding conditions of zoning. And that's difficult to answer because the law currently gives us certain, requirements and restrictions, but it doesn't give us the full picture. So there's certain things that I can give you a definitive answer on and certain things I can't. And this discussion, if council wants to go further in sort of the potential results might be better to have in an executive session because it goes into sort of more legal potential than necessarily things that are legally determined currently.

Understood and we know that often as was referenced in testimony like in the time of enslaving humans the law is very much slower to catch up with the reality of the situation that that weird like faced with as society as government and so like It's very clear. We saw what happened in Nepal yesterday. Are we going to do that to our people?

I think it'd be interesting to hear from Public Works regarding the flood insurance program. I know that from the SMA standpoint, for properties that happen to be destroyed for whatever reason along the regulatory 3.2 erosion hazard line, we hold them to extremely strict criteria to rebuild. And so for that aspect, and it may not still be as responsive as maybe like we want to be, but for the rules that are exist now, they are held to a very high scrutiny to rebuild. And then as buildings grow, improve themselves to extend their life on the shoreline specifically. We do put in conditions to have them have a state certified shoreline or other aspects to address encroachments or the elements that we identify as needing to be addressed when they come in for permits extending their life on the shoreline. So those are just small things that the planning department does to try to mitigate impact and address risk for properties.

Mahalo, Deputy Director. Very unsatisfying, but I appreciate your comments.

Would you like to hear from Deputy Director Barony about flood and what that criteria looks like on their end? Sure. Okay. He's with us still, yeah?

Yes, he's online.

Thank you.

Aloha members, yes. So similarly, the National Flood Insurance Program does have requirements for whether or not they're residential or apartment, in certain flood zones to carry insurance, as well as what those insurances cover. Similar to what Deputy Director Lillis said, if the properties were destroyed, they would have to meet the flood development requirements, typically which are mostly elevating habitable spaces. Does that answer your question?

Also. Can you clarify if by destroyed he means condemned or like what he means by destroyed?

Sure, and then if you could also clarify when they repair their buildings, the cumulative worksheet they have to do to ensure that they're not going like, I believe it's over 50% of the assessed value you're allowed to maintain.

That that is correct. Yeah, so. Councilmember Paulton to confirm your question, it would be whether it's destroyed in. You know, a natural disaster, a fire. That sort of thing, and then the trigger also becomes. When they reached at 50% threshold.

I guess I wanted clarification like the buildings in Member Cook's district from the last, was it Oconalo, would those be considered destroyed and like unlivable basically, condemned unlivable, is that considered destroyed, it happened in a disaster or something like that?

Yes, thank you.

Kohana Sunset Building F, is that considered destroyed?

Yes, so how we look at it is based upon structurally. So mud and material is all remediated or can be remediated. If the structure is compromised in a way that you know, violates public safety, then it would be a condemnation, similar to the recent Kihei Kainani, I think, if I'm remembering the one along Sugar Beach there.

That would be considered destroyed? Correct. Okay. That was just a clarification, but I did have other questions.

Okay, sorry, before we move on, Member Rollins-Fernandez, was your question answered?

As sufficiently or as much as it can be right now and not going into executive session. And I did hear the timer and so mahalo for calling deputy director to also provide a response.

Um, I didn't say it cause I was being quick, but the cumulative flood worksheet expands 10 years. So they're going to calculate at the NSF made a change. They're going to calculate all of the improvements. Any structure has done within the 10 years and it cannot exceed 50% or more or they have to then bring their structure up to current code. Yes. Yes.

That is correct.

Member Palten, did you have?

50% of the assessed value.

Over the last 10 years. So it's a cumulative worksheet they must fill out. And then they, of course, have to hire surveyors. It's a long process. But yeah, go ahead, Member Poppin.

I'm not sure who is the answer, who is the person that I expect to answer this question. But so you have the Slorexa and the erosion hazard line and those are like best guess projections. They're not like this is how it's gonna be because nobody tells nature what they're gonna do, what she's gonna do. And so, when we say 74 years out, 2100, 3.2 sea level rise already, that's just an estimate. And as we've seen in Kihei, more so the damage comes from singular catastrophic events like a large swell on a king tide or 40 inches of rain, whatever. So then it really is, on projection. And so then I have a list of conditions that I feel kind of go along or match the criteria that has been verbalized. But do you have other conditions or criteria that would come into effect as we're talking about all this variety of properties near the shoreline within the SMA. Fire.

Thank you for the question, I can. Go ahead. Okay.

Olinda Road, east of Kula. 2,900 block.

That's Noe's Road, huh? Yup, that's where I live.

Okay, hope everything's okay. Yes, so the shoreline regulations, I'll just point out, don't apply. So for the Maui Planning Commission specifically, if you're in the sea level rise exposure area, but outside of the erosion hazard line, so your Malka of the erosion, the 3.2 erosion hazard line, the shoreline rules.

I thought the 3.2 was the sea level rise exposure area.

So sorry, there's, if there are, there's three levels of the erosion hazard line as well. And so they, they match the Slorexa to the degree that the Slorexa has those three levels, the 1.1, the 2.1 and the 3.3. yeah two 3.2 thank you um so there's three levels of the anyway what i'm trying to say is um that my planning commission has adopted the 3.2 erosion hazard line as the regulatory shoreline and so you can be within the slorexa 3.2 and still outside of the erosion hazard line that might be more closer to the ocean. And so if you're outside of the 3.2 erosion hazard line, you would not be held to the shoreline regulation. So you wouldn't be held to shoreline setback or shoreline setback variance, all of those items. So it is easier to rebuild if you're outside of the 3.2 erosion hazard line is all I'm trying to say. So the department will take all of the analyses that you folks send us, but we might hold a stricter criteria to the properties that are even closer to the ocean than the 3.2 slow RECSA line, but we'll analyze everything.

Before or after I go through all my proposed conditions to propose to be in the committee report, could they, like I don't wanna propose something that isn't legal or doesn't make sense, so could I get feedback from them? Please. Okay. So you're gonna get back to me on the liability one already. Somebody also spoke about insurance policy with the county as the beneficiary. Do you know what that means?

I can't say for sure, but I think it might be related to usually when we have hold harmless, we have the county as an additional beneficiary on insurance policies, but I can't speak for the person, but that would be my guess.

Would that make sense as a condition to add the county as a hold harmless on your insurance policy or as a beneficiary or something? Does that make sense?

If it was related to a hold harmless, the struggle with giving you adequate answers is that a lot of these are dealing with existing structures and normally these are related to proposed developments and so that's part of the things if the body decides to go into executive session, I can sort of go over what the legal pieces we have to work with are and sort of considerations for council if they are looking to add conditions on these properties with existing structures already.

Okay, I have a few more, but if somebody else has the opportunity, I can yield.

Members, does anybody else have a question? Chair Lee?

Yeah, just for clarification. So are we done with criteria which will be voted on and part of the proposed ordinance, right? but, and then we're going into conditions, which will be more recommendations to be considered by the Planning Commission.

If you're asking me, I'm trying to align the conditions with the criteria. And so if there's more criteria, let me know.

Okay, but I'm just trying to make a distinction here. Yes. I heard earlier, Conditions or recommendations, criteria is pretty much what we expect to be in the draft ordinance, right?

For me, I don't want to make my conditions be now. I want it to be for consideration by the Planning Commission. I'm only speaking for myself, so I don't know what anyone else wants.