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

you

Bye.

Good morning. There's still a little bit in this morning. Good morning, everyone. Will the Housing and Land Use Committee meeting of July 1, 2026, please reconvene. It is 11.06 a.m. on July 6th. 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, or workspace with you today. And minors do not need to be identified. Let's begin with Committee Vice Chair Betongan. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, good morning, members.

Thank you. Council Member Tom Cook, good morning.

Aloha, good morning, Chair.

Council Member Gabe Johnson, aloha and good morning.

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

Thank you. Council Chair Alice Lee, aloha, good morning.

Aloha, ni hao, and to all of our Paque family.

Ni hao. Council Member Tamara Poulton, aloha, ni hao.

Ni hao ma, aloha kakahiaka, kia ora mate. Streaming live and direct from Hilo. I have with me my mom, Mildred H. Poulton, her caretaker, Novi, my husband, George Vieira is not in, but he'll be, and then one unnamed minor. and one canine adult, Hachacha Palty.

Hachacha. It's one of my favorite dog names I think I've ever heard. Council Member Rollins-Fernandez, aloha and good morning.

Aloha, chair Kako. Happy to be here in person and aloha to Hachacha and the rest of the Ohana in Hilo.

Such a good ring to it, right? Council Member Shane Sinensi, aloha, good morning.

Aloha kakāia kakākou, and aniaoma here at the Hana District Office, and I'm alone on my side, and District Staff Member Mavis Medeiros is on her side of the office.

Perfect, thank you. And Council Member Yukile Sugimura. Aloha, good morning.

Aloha, good morning everybody and looking forward to a productive meeting, thanks.

Thank you. From the administration, we have the planning director. Is she with us? Is she online? Okay, great. Ms. Jackie Takakura. In person, we have Deputy Planning Director Ana Lillis and Administrative Planning Officer Greg Post. Do we have Marcy Martin with us as well? Okay, great. The Director of Finance is with us, Marcy Martin, County Real Property Tax Administrator, Carrie Stockwell, Deputy Corporation Counsel Nahulu Nunukawa, and Ms. Tarnstrom is with us as well. We have our HOU Committee staff. Good morning, everyone. Please see the last page of the agenda for information on meaning connectivity. Oral testimony is already closed for both items on our agenda today, and written testimony will continue to be accepted. Members, we decided last week that we were taking both of those items up together for Resolution 110 and Resolution 111. Before we begin, I'd just like to note for members that we received planning comments on resolutions in writing for HLU the responses is item number 14 in Granicus, and for HOU 19, the response is number 10. So we're gonna begin and continue deliberations. What I would like to do is go into executive session as discussed, yes, not yesterday, Wednesday afternoon. I wish it was yesterday. Perhaps maybe be in executive session until lunch-ish. So that's about an hour or so. And then take our lunch, hopefully take a shorter lunch and come back to open session in the afternoon. If that's okay with you folks. I see Member Johnson's hand is up. I know Member Poulton has a flight to catch as well. I think around 420-ish, 430-ish. So hopefully we'll be done with that before she departs Hilo. Member Johnson?

Just to inform everybody, I have a one o'clock appointment today, so I'll be trying to spin some plates. I'll still be available in the afternoon, but I have to step out.

Okay, totally fine. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anybody else have any thoughts or is that okay with everybody? Is that okay? What about planning and Corp Council? Is that okay for you folks to be with us? Okay, thank you so much. Do we have any questions anybody would like to ask before we go into executive session? Member Palten.

Thank you. Just seeing if my ASF was distributed.

Yes. Did you folks get it online? Did we send it online? We emailed it to you folks online as well. Please let me know if you didn't get it.

And so a little bit more subjective than five or less is just single ownership properties. And I think we also did variances, which a lawyer for I think Kalemahina Surf said that they also have a variance. And then, um... the ones with 100% timeshares. Although those ones were exempted, I think we did hear from planning on Wednesday that for cleanness, for easier interpretation by the public and future staff that may not have this type of institutional knowledge, it would be easier that they were in the H3, H4. So I just wanted to give a little explanation as to that, that variances were included. And then since I made the ASF was contacted, I think Kalemahina Surf could be added to the variance list. Okay. 100% timeshares and then single ownership properties was just a little bit more objective. Yep. a criteria than subjective criteria.

Thank you. Yes, please, go ahead, Chair Lee.

So Member Palten, if we had a running total, what would that total be at this point? Or maybe the Chair knows.

Shucks, I didn't do a running total, but I think more important than running total is valuations, you know, if your concern is tax revenue. Because if there's more of the cheaper ones on the market, then the tax revenue isn't impacted as much. But we can do that analysis for you before first reading or something.

Four and 10 minutes.

Been a little busy over here, sorry.

Sorry, James was stealing my attention. I didn't hear your conversation, what was that?

I thought maybe you had, when you got her ASF, that you added it to your number. So now we have.

She got it the same time as everyone else, because Sunshine Law.

Yeah, I'm only looking at this now, but I do see that she has added three properties to the single ownership category, Aloha Villas, Wailea Inn, and Lahaina Beach Club, as well as included the variances and allowed uses which are four more, perhaps five more units, although they were already allowed to continue to use their TBR, because they're not bill nine effective. It is for cleaner, so that would have to be considered as well. I do not have a running total for the amount.

Maybe staff can do it later.

But we can do it later, for sure. And we can probably take into consideration all of Member Cook's ones, because I didn't take into consideration for that. And I see that Member Sinensi also has an ASF. Member Sinensi, did you want to brief us on your ASF as well? It's pretty straightforward.

Thank you, Chair. We have one apartment zoned in East Maui, the Hanakai Resort.

and so that was the asf i would be proposing today chair thank you um and before we go into executive session i just would like to remind um the members as well as people watching online that i did ask nahulu our deputy corporation council nunakawa what happens to the units that were not informed by a letter via finance as codified in Bill 9 and what happens to the properties that are not listed on the Minnetonka list and where do they land. And Member Rollins-Fernandez had a couple questions I think she wanted to ask in executive session as well. I was told to explain why we're gonna go into executive session. Did you wanna give us a quick overview of some of your thoughts? Because apparently we have to do it and then we'll go into executive session.

No, I think you covered it. Okay. Yeah, just consulting with our attorneys.

Exactly, thank you. So I would like to entertain a motion to convene an executive meeting in accordance with section 92-584 Hawaii Revised Statutes to consult with legal counsel on questions and issues pertaining to the tower powers, duties, privileges, and immunities and liability of the county, the council, and the committee.

So moved. Second.

Thank you. I have a motion made by Chair Lee, second by Member Cook to enter to executive session for resolution 26-110 and 26-111. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, there are nine ayes, no nos. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. For the record, the following personnel will be attending this executive session meeting. All council members in attendance, including myself, Committee Chair Nohe Uwuhajinsk, Committee Vice Chair Kawanoe Betongan, Council Member Tom Cook, Council Member Gabe Johnson, Council Chair Alice Lee, Council Member Tamara Paulton, Council Member Keone Rollins-Fernandez, Council Member Shane Sinensi, and Council Member Yukile Sugimura. Office of Council Services staff will include Ms. Carla Nakata, legislative attorney, and Ms. Jennifer Yamashita, committee secretary. And from Corporation Council, are we gonna have Deputy Corporation Council, Nohulu Nunukawa, and Deputy Corporation Council, Christian Tarnstrom? Okay. And then at this time, are you guys gonna say as well? Okay, we will see you after lunch then. Okay, at this time then I'm gonna call for a 10 minute recess to 11.27 a.m. and we will convene an executive meeting. We are now in recess. Good afternoon, everyone. It is 1.54, and will this HAU committee please reconvene. We left an executive session, and we are now open in open session. So before we continue, Carla, can you please give us a quick overview of our executive session?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Your HOU committee met in an executive meeting to discuss the rights and liabilities of the council, the committee, and the county. Apart from that discussion, there were three topics that came up during executive meeting that it was determined may be more appropriate to be discussed in the open session. One was a general topic of the effect of the TIG's recommendations. The second was who was not notified by the Department of Finance that the finance department may have subsequently become aware of. And the third had to do with phasing of possible future resolutions. That's it, Chair, thank you.

thank you and i think member batongan wanted to clarify our ability to potentially change the language in the resolution to reflect the community plan and our response and we'll say it for the record is that because we had the minnetoyah list of all potential properties to be laterally moved over into H3, H4, that was allowable. Maybe, Carla, if you could just confirm for me, or Nuhulu could confirm for me, Member Patongan's request to double, triple check.

Thank you, Chair. That's staff's understanding is that because properties were listed on exhibit one to the agenda, they were appropriately noticed for possible consideration for inclusion in either of the committee's posted resolutions.

Thank you. Members, if you don't mind, I know we did take both items up at the same time, but if we could begin with 110 and center our conversations regarding those list of properties, and then we will move over to 111. Member Poulton is with us for a short bit before she boards her flight, so I'm gonna give her the opportunity to ask questions or begin discussion related to 110 or her ASF. Member Palten, can you hear us? Would you like to say anything? Oh, and for the record, for Sunshine Law record, would you please just acknowledge where you're at? Okay, we will hold. We will hold up Member Paulton's question. Member Cook, why don't I give you the opportunity then? Oh, there she is.

Chair, just for the record, I'm in my home office here by myself.

Thank you. Thank you. I see both you and Member Johnson are in the same location sort of that we left you at. Only Member Paulton seems to have changed. Member Paulton, did you want to... I know you have to board a flight soon. Did you want to... Say anything about Resolution 110 or your ASF as it relates to Resolution 110. I know you have to board your flight.

Nothing additional to what I said this morning except that I'm in a public location at the Hilo International Airport. Sorry you guys went through the x-ray screener just now.

That was the closest I've ever seen it. That was fun. Okay.

I don't have anything else to say.

Okay, sounds good. Member Cook? Okay. Did you wanna add anything for your ASF as it relates to resolution 26-110?

I'd like to confirm that all the members have it from last week's meeting.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. So basically, my amendments would add one timeshare and three leasehold properties to the proposed bills attached to Resolution 26.110. These properties are noted on Agenda's Exhibit 1. That's basically it. Want me to keep going? That's the essence of it.

Okay. Okay, I have it here. I'm sorry, my mic wasn't on. We are gonna have a three minute discussion period. Does anybody wanna begin with any questions relating to resolution 110? If not, I would like to just note that we did provide you a list that broke down the properties by category, that was a separate distribution that you got on Wednesday morning. As it reflects in the resolution, they are broken down by what they currently are zoned as, so you'll notice multifamily for 110 and residential, and those two groupings to hotel. And then for the handout that we gave you, you'll notice that the timeshare properties, those lists include Maui Hill, Maui Sunset, Kuleana I, Kuleana II, Paki Maui III, and Paki Maui I and II. Those are the timeshare units. The leasehold units are Honokai, Lauloa Ma'alai, Ma'alai Kai, Milowai Ma'alai, Kahana Outrigger 1, 2, and 3, if it goes through for planning department, as well as Hale Mahina Beach Resort, Hale Onoloa Maui Sands 2, aka Maui Sands Seaside, and Kaanapani Royal. For the properties, at least on, again, mine, that's a little bit different from Member Paulton's for the units with one singular owner and was at that time under five include my Y Beach Cottage, Indo Lotus Beach House, property at, 2131 Ili Ili Road, Kihei, 1194 Ulunio Road in Kihei. These don't have names, that's why I'm listing off the street address. 1178 Ulunio Road in Kihei, Villa Moana, Kapu Townhouse, Waiohuli Beach Duplex, and another property at 1470 Halama Street. So those are the breakdowns then. Do we have any discussion related to those units as I've listed out? Chair Lee.

Do you wanna have a discussion before the motion?

You know, that depends on everybody else. I didn't necessarily make a motion yet, but if we have any further discussion or any questions related to those, now would be the time to ask.

Okay, I have nothing.

Do you have any, I see your mics on, Member Cook. Do you have anything? And then I saw Member Rollins-Fernandez raise her hand. And Member Poulton. Go ahead.

So I can move to amend Resolution 26-110 if it's the appropriate time. I thought we were gonna discuss.

I would like to just have a bit more discussion and then happily take your amendment. Member Poulton, sorry, Member Rollins-Fernandez, do you mind if I call on her because she does need to leave. Member Poulton.

Oh, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. I did hear what Member Cook was saying, I think about one timeshare and three leasehold. And I believe Kauhali Makai was the timeshare. Is Kana'i Analu Kahana Village and Maui Sands leasehold? And does he have the breakdown of how many of the units are leasehold? Like how on your... on your paper, like it said two units or four or eight.

Do you have the breakdown of information on your proposed amendments for the 110? Do you have it with you? Can you share that with us?

Yeah. And then the one other question I had for my ASF, I spoke to Mr. Uyoka, and he said that Mahina Surf, I guess that's 111 if we're taking it up the same time. He said that Mahina Surf had a variance. And so we're thinking that the planning department is going to vet and verify all the information. And if that's true, I would like to move Mahina Surf onto the variance list.

Thank you.

Chair.

Yes.

I just spoke with the planning department about this and they have additional information on that specific property.

Sure. Yes, thank you. You know, we've been coordinating with some property owners, and we've confirmed two properties that are on the chair's list as having a valid variance, but Mahina Surf had also approached the department, and we looked back at that approval of that variance, which is back in the 1960s, and that was not for to allow TVR. Instead, that variance was to allow an increase in density for that property, but not anything related to transit vacation rental. So subsequently, we've let Mahina Surf know in the past from the departments, let them know that they are not eligible or exempt as a variance.

Okay. Where is my... Okay, thank you.

I'd like to cancel the request then in that case to put Mahina-Surf on the variance list unless they have other new documentation that the planning department hasn't vetted.

Okay, heard, thank you very much. Okay, does anybody, James, sorry, did you need me for something? Okay, does anybody else have any other, I actually have a question for planning. So we heard through testimony that Hale Onoloa is no longer a leasehold property. Actually, maybe it's not for planning, maybe it's for, Finance, do we have finance on or RPT? Oh, great, thank you so much. Can you please confirm if Hale O Noloa is still considered a leasehold property? Do they have a ground lease still?

According to the data that real property was gathering for your correspondence yes it looks like there are two of the units are still leasehold so typically what happens when um the lease fee owner decides to sell is maybe the association will will buy out the ground lease and then those individual owners who um don't buy out will still remain leasehold. You know, maybe they didn't have the money to buy it out. So it looks like Hale Onoloa has two units that are leasehold.

Okay. Thank you. I guess for some insight into the TIGS process, when we discussed leaseholds for the benefit of you folks. We were looking at it through the lens of attempting to have more attainable and affordable condos for sale, not necessarily for rent as this body permits those and we help subsidize brand new rentals all the time for affordable units through our HUD process. So we were looking at this to purchase units, which is when we discussed how it can be difficult to obtain a mortgage for a property that has less than 35 years less on their lease. So it's the typical mortgage of 30 plus five. You'll notice that majority of them have that except for the Kahana Outrigger. And we provided for you folks, or I think maybe Member Cook did, a list of when they have to renegotiate. So they renegotiate often through this time. Also, it was less arbitrary to provide you guys the entire list of leasehold properties instead of just a couple. I would also like to add, during our conversation, the idea of getting a mortgage for a condo is a little bit different for a leasehold property than when you do for, a single family home or in like a trust document where the trust owns the land and it's provided to you affordable in perpetuity and then you own the house. It is slightly different when you have an organization that owns the property and you own a unit in a larger building. It becomes a little bit more difficult. Sorry, I'm going to just ignore that real quick. And then for the timeshares, okay, sorry, I'm just gonna explain, like maybe just have a couple of things to add. For the timeshare units, Member Poulton added, which I didn't do, but I'm happy to accommodate, we didn't, We didn't add on this list the one that had 100% of the units because those are not Bill 9 affected, because timeshare units are not Bill 9 affected. But we wanted to incorporate the properties. Member Paltin's amendment moves those in. I wanna state that if those go through her recommendations and her ASF, whether or not they actually attain H3 and H4, that doesn't change their allowable use. So this will be for just records keeping and to be consistent, but there still can operate now. Though we added timeshares in Bill 9 is not Bill 9 affected, and we discussed with Corp Council allowing the properties as well. Regardless of how many units are timeshares, we included those properties. And then for the properties with a single family or single owner or less than five, they kind of didn't really fit the priority of creating affordable housing or attainable housing because we didn't assume that the single family person or the single owner would sell at an affordable price for anybody to buy a unit. And that was kind of our thinking for those. And I just wanted to put that out. I know I said all of those things in the TIG, but it's been a long time and we're all inundated with all kinds of things all the time. So I just wanted to remind you folks kind of the work we did. I know for some of us, we were in the TIG and some of us were not.

But do we have any questions related to Resol 26-110?

One, 10, that's the timeshares, leaseholds, and as it is on mine, properties with under five. Member Cook and then we'll go to Member Fernandez.

So I guess my question is what's the determination of the threshold for whether we're considering a leasehold or not? I understand your description. There could be two, there could be 14, could be a variety. are we making a determination or has there been a determination made at what the threshold and the determining factor is, whether they are, quote, on the leasehold list subject to rezoning for H3 and H4 because?

I did not.

Okay.

I included all that were leasehold.

Okay, no, thanks. I was just making sure I didn't miss anything.

Yeah, no worries. Thank you. Thank you. Member Rollins-Fernandez, please. Mahalo chair.

Kind of similar question as Member Cook. For leasehold, we talked about, so, you know, there's several parcels, like Maui Sands, like 100% of them are leaseholds. Yes. And then, you know, the ones like Ma'alai Akai is two out of 79, the one that you were just talking about. potentially two out of the 67, even though the testifier said those two are no longer there. So I don't know who has the more updated information, finance department or the testifier. But we had talked about what should be the qualification for a leasehold. And it seems like a lot of them are 100%, the ones here. And the other ones are just a few. So maybe similar to the 100% timeshare, 100% leasehold.

Is that what you want to see? Sorry to clarify. Okay. So for the a hundred percent timeshare, those are just not bill nine affected.

No, no, no. That wasn't my question for leasehold.

What should be the criteria that I didn't create and I, with the TIG didn't discuss. So I, yeah, my proposal. Yep. Great question. I don't necessarily have one. We can discuss that now to make it less arbitrary. When I did my reso, I just put that all out there and we can discuss in, um, an open forum of what that may look like. I know Member Poulton had a very similar question too. So I guess by that then, what is the criteria you would like to see for?

100% leasehold.

100% leasehold, that's what you said, okay.

Yes.

Okay, does anybody have any discussion for the 100% leasehold? Chair Lee, go ahead.

What's the downside of that?

Like legally, or?

From a practical point of view, what is the downside of that, not including them? So they would have to apply individually, is that? their fallback position?

Their fallback position, so the property in itself would have to apply individually if we were to remove them off the list. As well as those units would be difficult to mortgage. which on this list is probably that's not 100% that has a bigger portion of their properties, their units on that property that's leasehold. So we've got 47 units and 10 are leasehold. So you're left with 37 that's not leasehold. Those 10 leasehold units, Which property are you talking about? Do you have my list?

Yeah, I think so.

Okay. So on my list that leasehold properties, it does provide a breakdown of the total units and the total leasehold units. And I'm just using that as an example because that one has the biggest percentage of leasehold units that's not 100%. So those properties, those leasehold units would be difficult to mortgage. especially because their units, their leasehold, I'm sorry, will expire in 2039.

Unless it's terminated sooner.

Unless it's terminated sooner for whatever reason.

Or extended.

or extended, and those are the options, right? We're not the owner, who knows what's gonna happen? That's just, that was the basis for our discussion in the TIG. And so we can do exactly what Member Rollins-Fernandez suggested or not, we could do whatever, but I don't, yeah, that's my answer.

I wish we could talk to somebody who is in this situation, that would be helpful. some real estate expert.

Do you wanna ask, finance that question maybe?

Well, somebody who has practical experience, whether it being a property owner or a real estate broker.

Okay, that's who we had in our take and that's what was told to us. So those units are difficult to mortgage. Those 10 units, yes.

We did have testimony from Ms. Ness, Lahaina Community Land Trust who does leaseholds and said that for many banks like ASB, they do mortgages to leaseholds.

Yep, for 30 plus five years.

No, no, they said 15.

Yeah. Yeah. But those are a little bit different because the property is owned by the trust. So those are a little bit more guaranteed than when you have this situation where the property is not owned by the trust. So I agree and I do think there's a little bit of nuance and each property is absolutely different.

One more question.

Go ahead.

Okay. So for the 10 property owners here in this particular situation.

Yeah.

Their option would be to accept things the way they are or get an extension on their lease and apply for a change in zoning?

Not the units. So all properties would be affected. All 47 properties would be affected.

All 47?

All 47 properties would be affected, yes. Okay, thank you. More than just the leasehold units. The leasehold units are difficult to mortgage. The other non-leasehold units are less difficult to mortgage because those aren't leasehold properties.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah. Member Patonga.

Thank you, Chair. Can you guys help me understand the leaseholds issue that we're debating now. So my understanding of a leasehold property is when you own the building but you lease the land, correct?

Typically.

Okay, so for these apartment units, how does it... You own the unit. Yeah, how is it that some units are owned outright and some are leased?

Let's ask finance that question.

They can buy out the ground lease.

They can buy out the ground lease is what Member Paltin said. But we can ask Director Martin.

Yes, that is the case that typically when the original lease fee owner can sell their position, and some people may buy it out and some people may not so um sometimes you'll see that um because that interest is is for sale now um if it's still useful an outside party from the open market may have bought So they'll buy that income stream with the reversion. So it's a variety, but it is possible. It is possible for people to create their own leaseholds within their family too.

Okay. I guess I'm asking because I didn't quite understand the answer that was given to Chair Lee when it came to the question of what does us rezoning or not rezoning this mean for these individuals? Because we're rezoning the property, not the individual units, correct? So when it comes to rezoning these, if we take the position that we're only gonna do a county initiated change in zoning for those that are 100% leasehold, what is the rationale for taking that approach and then what does it mean for the units that do not have 100% leasehold. So my understanding for what that means for those who do not have the leasehold is that they will have to apply just like anybody else on there as individual applicants. But what I'm not clear on is the rationale for dividing them out.

Would you like to ask Member Rollins-Fernandez for her thoughts on that, why she would like to do that? Can you repeat what we just did about the rationale?

Yeah, so I guess I don't understand the rationale for separating the properties that are not 100% leasehold units out from the county-initiated process.

Oh, I have an answer, but I'll yield to Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Member Bolton, you can go since I'm sitting here. And yeah, you, go ahead, please share. Okay.

Um for me it would be that you know like we said there's more than one reason to do this but um primarily we want to give people an opportunity for housing and so it taking doing a council initiated changing zoning for a property that has like less than 25% leasehold units is lessening the chances of people that may want to buy it. Like some folks stayed at Hale Onoloa as FEMA tenants and they want an opportunity to purchase it or whatever property that has only like less than 25% leasehold. And so we would be, as the council, precluding that opportunity for a small percentage of leasehold properties. That would be my answer. But maybe Member Rollins-Fernandez has another reason.

Similar. And so since I have the paper in front of me, we're discussing Hale Onoloa, for example. And that one has 67 total units. two potential leaseholds, but as we mentioned, the testifier said that those no longer exist. And in 2015, 70% of those 67 units were owner occupied. So, Not that long ago, people were living there. So it's not like we're taking vacation rentals that were always vacation rentals. These were houses. These were where people lived. So as Maripalton said, this is the reclaiming of housing that was taken from our housing inventory, our housing stock, and getting them back into residential inventory again. Because we lost housing because the people who can pay the highest for it are the people who are going to commodify the units. So it's giving our residents that chance again. Because right now they can't compete with people who are going to commercialize and just profit off of the units. They're just looking for shelter.

Okay, thank you. That does help clear things up. I guess I'll share my line of thinking on this and it's that I would first look to, I think it was exhibit two from the TIG report on what the council had initially indicated that they were going to- Not council, TIG. Sorry, the TIG initially indicated that it was gonna consider for these rezonings. And then I would look to, the characteristics of the properties themselves, this being one of them, but there are others that were used to determine whether or not properties should be converted. And I guess that this is a data point for consideration, but I think there are others that have been floated that I would also like to weigh. And it's hard for me to understand, It's hard for me to make that analysis with just the data in front of me. So I guess I'm a little, I think I have some work to do in understanding the properties that we're debating now because I would want to weigh other considerations along with whether or not it's 100% leasehold versus not. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Member Palten, I see your hand is up.

Yeah, and I would be supportive of Member Batongan or anyone else with the analysis to visit Haleo Onoloa or other properties that they're questionable about. I wasn't able to go through because they do block access to their beach, but funnily enough, they don't block access to their elevator. So I went up in the elevator to the top floor and was able to get a pretty good overview of the property and it would be a lovely place for people to live year round and kind of reclaim shoreline access as well.

Thank you. Chair Lee.

Since the TIGS exhibit two list was well publicized and it's relevant to bill nine and what we're doing today. Do you recall how many people, property owners, actually requested not to be included on either of these resolutions? Oh, zero so far. Zero, okay.

For people who I put out the resolution for who I said they did not wanna move to H3, H4?

Yes.

Yeah, none of them.

None of them, okay, thank you.

Thank you. I have a question for finance. We heard from planning that there is a third Kahana outrigger that the TIG didn't initially consider, but it is a leasehold property. I'm wondering if you could provide me the information on the total units and the total leasehold units.

That property that wasn't included, the one they weren't necessarily because of the leasehold. It was because of their proximity to the ocean. The one TMK that wasn't included was because of the proximity was back towards the road for that TMK. And I think the leasehold on that was through 2071, so with a third year plus five. I understand the lease negotiations are more current, but I imagine not being able to do short-term rental would figure into the negotiations. And those, also I would encourage members to visit. Lovely place to live. And... really spacious, you know, and they say, oh, this wouldn't make sense for anyone to live long-term parking, like all the things.

I'm asking because if we do switch our criteria and, or rather, if we do solidify that our criteria is going to be leaseholds, a hundred percent, then I guess that would be the criteria. But if member.

A hundred percent, if we take out those 25% or less. Okay.

Director Martin? It's loud. Can you turn it down a little bit?

Thank you, Chair. So we did the research on the properties that were

on the list so that you said that kahana outrigger was on on the list it was on the minnetoyah list but not the tig list do you have that information um okay i think in this case you should probably put it um in writing to us and we can get that for you very quickly but just so that there's no confusion sounds good Can we send a letter to clarify the amount of units in the third non-TIG listed four? Oh, it's four units? Greg, do they have four units in total and then four leasehold and they can double check?

I apologize, I don't know the leasehold amount, but I know that they're four units. They're only four units.

Can you please provide us the, I guess we could look for it, the third unit? and then let's send it over to finance so we can be consistent in our application for leaseholds.

Yeah, my recollection is they had three TMKs. One TMK had eight leasehold units total, eight units total, eight leasehold, four units total, four of them leasehold, and then the third TMK had four units total, four leasehold.

And four were leasehold, if you could remember, Member Palten? Okay.

Yeah, they all were leasehold with a 2071 lease.

Okay, sounds good. Any other questions? Member Sinansi.

Thank you, Chair. And so we're just looking at the Kahana Outrigger because it has a leasehold period of over 10 years.

No.

A remaining? Did you want one that had like a longer leasehold time? Because you said it was hard to get a mortgage on a shorter leasehold time.

Yeah, it is harder to get a mortgage on a shorter leasehold time. Right now we're discussing potentially amending the resolution to remove the leasehold properties, that was Member Rollins-Fernandez's suggestion, of properties that are not 100% leasehold, which on the 2610 reso would include one, two, three, removal of four parcels potentially. out of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, potentially 11.

But keep the 100%. But some of them have a leasehold remaining on them of less than 10 years. Yes. But just for criteria, you would still want to keep the 100%.

That was Member Rollins-Fernandez's. That's a lot of S sounds. That was her suggestion for discussion.

Okay, thank you. Of course.

Any other discussion? I'm okay to probably remove Hale Onoloa because we heard in testimony that they're not leasehold, even though we are getting conflicted advice. But I would be okay with removing that one at least. The rest, I would be okay with sending to the Planning Department, I'm sorry, Planning Commission for discussion. Member Poulton and then Member Rollins-Fernandez.

Sure, I would be okay with 100% leasehold and taking 75% leasehold and above would be where I would go. If you want to add on this Kahana Outrigger because it's 100% resource, I would be okay with it. The 75% and above resource would make it on the list to transmit to the Planning Commission.

Oh, sorry, my mic was off. Okay, I heard you.

Thank you. Member Rollins-Fernandez, I saw your hand go up. Mahalo, Chair. And that, I mean, whatever, that's fine. For me, I said 100% just because that's clean. It wouldn't unfairly remove one and not another Ma'alaiakai that has 79 units and only two potential leaseholds units. and were 32% owner occupied in 2015. So, I mean, I think that also matters, like the amount of units that were used as residential and not just vacation rental. And I know the purpose was, apartment was for a mix initially, but our residents just can't compete with someone who's gonna be paying for the commodification off of housing, profiting off of housing instead of just living in it. So if the majority wants to go with 75%, whatever, There was one more point, but I don't remember right now. Oh, okay, that was the thing I was gonna say. So it just means it's not on this list now. I know to Chair Lee, she asked, so what happens now? Do they have to go by themselves? No, there's other options. They just wouldn't be on this particular list right now. And the number of units that are leasehold doesn't mean it'll always be leasehold. It's just conditions are constantly moving, so. The hope is with this continued movement toward prioritizing our residents' need over the profiteering for people who don't even live here, that the units would eventually become more affordable. Not affordable necessarily, but more in reach for our residents than they are after, especially like COVID. where a lot of people scooped up a lot of units and started profiting off of 92% don't even live here. Hello, Chair.

Thank you. Do you have a document that shows you, would you mind? Yeah. Oh, okay, okay. Oh, thanks. Okay. This is, I was just trying to look at when she said at 2015 it was 63, shucks, I wrote it down on the other paper. What percentage it was for?

You're talking about the Ma'alaiakai?

Yeah. 32%. 32% owner occupied.

And Nilowai Ma'alaiakai was 50.1%. That one's 100% leasehold, but over half was owner-occupied in 2015. Mm-hmm.

Member Cook, on your potential ASFs, do you have a breakdown of what is on the leaseholds and what is on timeshares? Like a quick just graph reference?

Yes.

Or can you tell us?

Kahale Makai, 13 are timeshare units.

Oh, yeah. Okay, so that one is timeshare.

And there's 13 units, so it gets into the percentage basis. Kahana Village is leasehold. Maui Sands is leasehold. and Kahana I A Naulu is leasehold. So the one-time share, three leaseholds.

Okay. Do you have a breakdown of the units and the units that are also leaseholds, the properties?

80 units on Kahana I A Naulu. Okay. 42 units on Kahana Village. and 56 units Maui Sands 1 and 20 units Maui Sands 2.

Okay, I have Maui Sands 2 on here. Okay. That's the total units?

Correct.

And then do you know how many leasehold units are in those total units?

Those are all, no. Well, the ones, I just looked them up and basically Kahana Village appears to be all leasehold, Maui Sands appears to be all leasehold.

Okay. Do you know about the other one? Okay. Okay.

He sold three leasehold one time. Sure.

Okay. Did you want to make a motion? Um, okay, go ahead. Member cook. Oh, Oh yeah, sorry. My brain is a little bit frazzled. I don't even have my notes in front of me. I was looking at something else.

We need the main motion first.

Yes, one second.

Chair. Yes. While you're looking for your notes, so did we make a decision on what the criteria is gonna be for the leasehold properties?

We did not vote on that, no. I don't know if we've made a decision either. I figured I couldn't do a straw poll and we would have to go into voting.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, in the TIG, we were able to just kinda do that, but then now in Sunshine, I think, do we have to wait to?

I don't think that's a straw poll. Okay. I mean, as we discussed, it would be like whatever our criteria is gonna be. Okay. And then that's what's gonna be on the list.

Okay, and you want the criteria, though, to be 100%, and then Member Paltin said 75 or above. Yeah, so we may have to just take it to a vote, okay. At least that'd be easier for me to remember.

It can support 100% and above as well.

Okay, 100% and above, 101, I like it. Absolutely all leasehold. I like that doubling down, okay. Thank you, members. So first I'm gonna entertain a motion to adopt Resolution 2610, incorporating any non-substantive revisions. Okay, I have a motion made by Member Sugimura. Hold on, I like to take my notes. When we do my notes, can we put a section for the motion so I can write it down, so I like to remember. I have a second by Member Cook. Any discussion? And then we're gonna obviously make motions. Member Alvarez-Fernandez.

Mahalo, Chair. For the leasehold properties, I move for the criteria to be 100% or more leasehold.

Okay, do we have a second, Member Palten? Second. Okay, I have a motion. Second. Thank you. I have a motion on the floor to make the criteria for leaseholds 100%. I have a motion made by Member Rollins-Fernandez and a second by Member Palten. Discussion, Chair Lee?

I'd like to amend that motion to be 75%. 75%, I have a motion.

I was gonna remember all this. Okay, a motion on the floor to amend the amendment to 75%. Do I have a second? Second for discussion by member Sugimura. Chair Lee, do you have discussion?

Yeah, I think it's fair to those in the minority who really don't have a voice here today. Thank you.

Okay. I'm gonna give the seconder an opportunity. Go ahead, Member Sugimura.

This discussion is good, because I was not in your TIG, but what did you say in the TIG the percentage should be, or what was the discussion?

We did not discuss a percentage in the TIG.

So it would be anybody, everybody. That's why you put all of it in, right?

It was easier in our timeline to just make those decisions. We had a week.

Yeah, but you just put everybody, right?

I can contribute to the discussion. Yeah, go ahead, Member Poppin. as being in the team. We didn't even consider that. I mean, I personally, I won't speak for everyone. I didn't consider that, I didn't even know that it was some units were not and some, when we said, oh, that's a leasehold and we put it on the list, my thought process was the property was kind of like how Member Matangan viewed leaseholds. So I didn't even consider that there might be only two units or a little, like when we said, oh, this property has leasehold, my assumption, which, you know, short timeline, quick, plenty work, was that it was a leasehold property, not a leasehold unit. So then when I seen like, oh my goodness, they only had two units in leasehold, I was like, we're getting a little out of control. So that's, I can, other people in the team can tell you what they thought, but that was my assumption when we said it was a leasehold property and so it should go on the list. My assumption was, it was a hundred percent.

Your assumption was that it was a hundred percent. Is that what you just said? That was her assumption. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And what was your assumption?

My assumption is I'm so overwhelmed with so much information. This is the easiest thing to make a decision and then provide it to you folks for continuous discussion.

So you put everything.

We put everything because at that time we really didn't have a breakdown per unit. We mainly thought about it in the idea of if somebody was to buy these units, it would be difficult. We didn't take into consideration the amount of units of timeshare, I'm sorry, leaseholds to units. Primarily we were looking at ground lease. And just as an FYI, Chair, there's not necessarily a material difference between 75% leasehold to what we're discussing or a hundred percent leasehold to what is being discussed because, um, Majority of Tom's amendments look like they're also 100% leaseholds, and if we're gonna keep that criteria, if that's the criteria, we're probably gonna have to add Kahana regardless of its proximity to the ocean, because that is now our criteria. And then what that would be looking like is removing Kaanapali Royal, Ma'alea Kai, Lauloa Ma'alea, Hale Onoloa, and Honokai, but keeping Milowai Ma'alea, Kahana Outrigger 1, 2, and 3, Mahina Beach Resort, Maui Sands 2, as listed on mine, Maui Sands 1, as listed on member Cook's, Kahana Village, and Kanai Analu.

Okay, since you brought that up. So the list that I'm looking at that you mentioned five properties.

One, two, three, four, five, for potential removal. Yeah. Even at 75%.

Okay, then I withdraw my motion then. Okay. Because I really wanted to include them all.

Okay, is there another number you would like to, do you want to amend your motion?

To include them all. Okay.

Okay. Okay, go ahead, Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify.

I think she's withdrawing her motion. Yeah, because then she can just vote no. Yes. Member Cook.

I have a question for planning.

Go ahead.

This is a combination of planning and finance, but you folks are here. Timeshare, leasehold... A1, A2, H3, H4, and 120-unit building. And it has 10% of one, 15% of another, and a handful of permanent residents. And it's mostly short-term rentals. My understanding... and that's why I'm asking, if we change it to H3, H4, then the people who live there or want to live there and don't want to rent it out and don't want to pay timeshare taxes have the opportunity to be H3, H4, homeowner exemption, non-owner occupied long-term rental. So those opportunities exist in an H3, H4 rezoned property, correct?

Chair, if I could. Please do. So I'll have finance respond to the exemption categories, but that is our understanding that those would be available. But from the zoning district, it still allows the residential uses. So the people that currently occupy long-term rent, homeowner, they'd still be allowed to do those uses.

Thank you. One of my concerns is people get penalized and forced up the ladder. Currently, they're kind of forced up the ladder. Is that kind of correct?

We'd have to defer that to finance.

Does planning deal with timeshare, mixed-use timeshare properties at all?

Just in the regard of approving whether the use is allowable is my understanding.

And does planning deal with leasehold properties at all? It doesn't come into play. That's a finance consideration.

Correct. That's not us, correct.

We have finance on right now.

Yes. Hi, Director Martin.

Hello.

So basically, a leasehold property is just a long-term lease, right? They own for a period of time rather than until they decide to sell it. So finance doesn't look at leasehold or not leasehold. We value property as though there is one owner. So we will put the two owners on the property record, but generally speaking, in these lease agreements, the leasehold owner, the renter, agrees to pay the taxes for the fee owner, the lease fee owner or the landlord. just kind of given that perspective. So when they're paying, the leasehold owners are usually paying taxes for both positions, but yes, everybody can apply for the home exemption or the long-term rental exemption. And because the leasehold owner has agreed to pay the property taxes for the lease fee owner, they are also entitled to the home exemption and the long-term rental exemption.

Okay, one more question for you if I may. Does the value of the property vary over time depending upon the balance of the lease term?

Thank you. So, okay, when you say value of the property, for real property taxes, we value uniformly as if there's one owner. But yes, as the lease begins, a leasehold property really only has value if the lease rent is below market value. you know, as the term of the lease gets shorter and shorter and shorter, the value of that unit becomes closer and closer to just what the rent is. So it would, in theory, decrease for the leasehold owner's position. And then, of course, the other position, the lease fee position, would probably increase because they are going to redeem the property sooner. both positions together as if one owner would just follow typical market trends. And I know that's confusing.

No, thank you. It is a little wonky. You did a good job describing it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And I see member, I'm sorry, Chair, she has her hands up.

Thank you, I have a question for Deputy Lillis. So didn't the Mayor's revised proposal include the exhibit two from the TIGS recommendations?

The Mayor did not transmit an H3H4 proposal with the TIGS recommendations, no, Chair Lee.

Okay, he did a press release then. As far as we're concerned, he was in support of the TIG's recommendations.

The mayor's recommendation, or the mayor was in support of the TIG's finding that H3, H4 was appropriate to establish and transition certain units in.

Okay, all right. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Sugimura? Okay, Member Senanti, sorry, I didn't see your name. I mean, your hand up.

Thank you, Chair. Just for context, so the proposal is to include 100% leaseholds onto this council-initiated...

It's to limit the proposed... council initiated rezoning to the Maui Planning Commission to only those that are 100% leasehold.

Oh, that's what we're sending, okay.

That's what we're discussing right now. And then we're gonna discuss timeshares and then the single unit ones too. But yeah, that's the discussion.

Okay, because my question is, wouldn't we want to not to have the 100% as Ms. Ness had explained that it would be a potential housing for people who can afford a leasehold?

Yeah, she kind of said that. She said in her experience through her land use trust, she didn't find it necessarily difficult to get a mortgage for her lease homes on her single family homes on properties held in affordable use in perpetuity.

Yeah, I do see more diesel properties for sale on the MLS as well, and they're significantly cheaper.

Yes, it is difficult to mortgage, as we discussed in the TIG, for certain things, but yes.

Okay, thank you for that.

Thank you. Okay, so as a reminder, right now on the floor, we have a motion to amend resolution 25-110 to only include the properties that are 100% leaseholds which would then limit to Milowai Ma'alaya, Kahana Outrigger 123, Mahina Beach Resort, Maui Sands, two Maui Sands, one Kahana Village, and Kanaya E. Kanalu. Roll call. Roll call. I'm probably, just as FYI, I'm gonna be supporting my resolution as I provided it as just to send it down for discussion to MPC, but I am gonna recommend that we remove Hale Onoloa as we heard from testifiers that they don't have any timeshares.

I'm sorry, yeah, thank you. Shoot, I'm sorry. Chair, can you repeat what we're voting on right now? I'm so sorry.

You're probably going to want to support it. You were the seconder for the motion. It was the recommendation to limit the criteria, set the criteria rather, at 100% timeshare. Why do I keep saying timeshare? Leasehold proper units on leasehold properties.

Oh, okay. Did Chair Lee withdraw her 75%? Yeah.

Yes.

Oh, okay. That's the part I missed. Thanks.

She did, yes. Sorry, that was confusing. She did withdraw, and then so did Member Sugimura. Thank you. Let's do a roll call, please.

Chair Lee? No. Council Member Sugimura?

No.

Council Member Poulton? Aye. Council Member Johnson?

Yes.

Council Member Rollins-Fernandez? Aye. Council Member Cook?

No, currently.

Council Member Sinensi?

Aye.

Committee Vice Chair Betongan?

No.

And Committee Chair Uhu Hodgins? No. Chair, that's four ayes, five nos. Motion fails. Okay.

Members, if we could do this section for 1.10, and then let's take a quick recess. But I would like to make a motion to remove Hale Onoloa from this list. As they said, they no longer have timeshares, so let's make sure it's not arbitrary. Leasehold. Holy moly, that's only the third time.

Second. Oh, thank you. I wasn't a question.

Okay, so that's a motion on the floor.

Yes member, but on God, so it was I'm representing from Halle Ono law that said that they were no longer they sold properties or it was a member unaffiliated with the Property owners.

We heard it in testimony from somebody who owns over there. Oh Yeah, so to ensure that our list is as least arbitrary as possible and as consistent as possible, then I'm gonna do that. Any more discussion? Do I need a roll call? If not, all in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Chair, you have nine ayes, no nos. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. That is removed. Member Cook, did you want to do your ASFs? Oh, actually, do you mind? Can we do Member Poulton's ASFs because she's on a plane?

No, that's fine.

Thank you. And she's about to take off. So, Member Poulton, would you like to do your ASFs to include your changes to the single ownerships and... the timeshare ones and variances.

Yes, please. I move to amend the motion as stated in the ASF.

Do I have a second? Member Cook is your second. I saw Member Sinensi second as well. Any further discussion? Sure. Oh, sorry.

Go to the maker of the motion first.

Sure, thank you. This is to add single ownership, a less arbitrary than a five or less or too expensive. It's to add ones that are not Bill 9 affected, like variances, 100% timeshare, as we see some timeshare may do away with their timeshare scheme. And so we want to just make sure that you know, it's still included to not give planning and curb council a big headache later on and for clarity for planning as well as the public, as well as curb council.

Thank you very much. Member Patongan.

Thank you, Chair. Member Paltin, would you accept the friendly amendment to say that those made up of 100% timeshares as of December 15, 2025? And my rationale is twofold. One is that I want to protect the properties that are currently 100% timeshare, and then if any of them, if they dropped down to like 99.9, for example.

Member Patongan, I think It was 1991 as stated by Mr. Post.

Oh, it has to be as of 91? Yeah, as a timeshare plan. Okay, because I just wanted to make sure that nobody was converting to 100% timeshares as a result of our action today and that there's protection in place for the property owners who were... Non-conforming after 1991. Okay, so I would like to add that date to the ordinance itself.

Yes, I'd like to accept that.

Thank you so much, Member Batonga. Friendly amendment to include the date of timeshare planned. Any discussion? Do we need a roll call for this one?

Chair?

Yes.

Apologies. If staff could ask if there's like a specific date known. We know the year 1991, but...

I almost called you member post because my brain is just not working today. Mr. Post, is there a specific date for timeshare language?

There is a specific date, but I'm looking for it right now. It is in 1991. It's actually stated in the code under the criteria within chapter 19.37.

Well, we'll just put that as a thought and we'll get the stuff down. Okay, any roll call? Nahulu, director?

Okay.

Oh, mic on please.

Thank you.

Yep.

So the date itself, there is some nuance to that date. And it's been an ongoing discussion that I've been having with planning. So if you wanted to put something related to the date, it might be better at this point to... or to leave it open-ended so we can go and verify some of the legality behind it as it's going through the process because there's still some questions of both legality and interpretation.

Okay, we will get that. Could we add like legally operating?

I think that would be fine, and then we could verify what exactly legally operating entailed between now and when Planning Commission reviews before it gets back to you folks.

Okay.

That being the case, can I just state for the record my intent for this?

Please do.

I just want to make sure that the... We don't see any conversions to timeshares? Yeah, that nobody converts to timeshares as a result of our actions and that timeshares legally operating now are not penalized in the future should that status change.

Okay, and then I saw that Director Takakura had her hand up as well. Ms. Takakura, did you have anything to add?

Director Takakura.

Please locate the two-acre community.

Hi, sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to say the date was March 4th, 1991, but go ahead and listen to Corporation Council. Thank you.

Sounds good. We will take that into consideration. So right now we're voting on Member Paulton's ASF. All in favor? Please raise your hand and say aye. Aye.

Roll call, Chair.

Oh, roll call. Okay. Roll call.

Yes, please. I'm looking at the code on 19.37. It's May 3rd.

Okay, May 3rd. Okay, we will get that date narrowed down. But if we could please do a roll call. Thank you so much. Chair Lee?

Aye. Council Member Sugimura?

Oh, you're mic. Aye. She said aye.

Okay, thank you. Council Member Paulton?

Aye.

Council Member Johnson?

No. He said no. It was a little soft.

Council Member Rollins-Fernandez? Aye. Aye. Council Member Cook.

Aye.

Council Member Sinensi. Aye. Committee Vice Chair Patongan.

Aye.

Committee Chair Uhu Hodgins. Aye. Chair, that's eight ayes, one no. Motion carries.

Okay. I know Member Rollins-Fernandez has to leave soon and Member Poulton is clearly going to leave soon, but let's do Member Cook's ASF Oh, well, is that gonna take a while? Okay, let's go then. No, we just did all of her ASFs. Yeah, we just adopted her ASF. Yep, Member Cook, your ASF? Do I have a motion to amend the amended ASF? 26-10 to include Member Cook's ASF. I have a first and a second by Member Sugimura. Member Cook, discussion.

Okay. I have all four properties are listed in exhibit one under my motion would include the bills as follows. But I'm gonna make a change because Kahali Makai in my research, to clarify, they had 13 timeshares, but it doesn't meet the criteria that we were discussing, so I wanna omit that from my proposal.

We didn't discuss timeshares?

No, I'm just saying. So I have three leasehold properties that I would like to add.

Okay, we didn't, the motion to amend or to limit the criteria for 100 did not pass, so you can continue to go.

But when I look at the property, I didn't wanna include it.

Okay, don't include it then.

Because it's a hybrid, it's a real chop suey.

Okay, do what you like, sir.

Okay.

What is your, what is then your amended? You would like to include Kahana Village, Maui Sands 1, and I keep butchering their name. Yeah.

Kahana, Kahana Ainalu, and my neighbor's gonna tell me how to pronounce it in a minute. Kahana Village, Maui Sands 1, and Maui Sands 2.

Okay. And I have a second by Member Sugimura. Okay, next question.

Discussion? Chair, I'm sorry. Yeah, go ahead. I'm asking for the ASF, because the one I have only has Kamaole Sands, Luana Kai, and Mahina Surf.

Oh, I think that one is for 111, so his ASF for 110.

This is for 210.

110.

Yeah, 26, 110.

Do you want mine?

Kahale Makai, Kahana i Analu, Kahana Village, Maui Sands 1, and adding Maui Sands 2. But omitting Kahale Makai. So my amendment would add three leasehold properties to proposed bills attached to Resolution 26.110. These properties are noticed on Agenda Exhibit 1. I move to amend 26.110 by adding four properties. Three. Well, I'm adding Maui Sands 2.

I think Maui Sands is already on my list.

Maui Sands 1, Maui Sands 2 is at one unit.

Maui Sands is on my list as exists. You are amending for Maui Sands 1.

Okay, cool. I move by adding three properties to the proposed bill's attached resolution as shown in the attached markups. Kahana I Analu.

Kahana I Analu.

Kahana Village and Maui Sands 1. All three properties are listed on Exhibit 1 and under my motion would include in the bills as follows. Kana'i Nalu, 2.59 acre parcel located at 250 Haoli Street, Ma'alea, identified for real property tax purposes as tax map key 238014004, community plan Amendment Bill Section 2, from multifamily to hotel. Change and Zoning Bill Section 3, from A2 apartment district to H4 hotel district. Kahana Village, a 3.199 acre parcel located at 4531 Lower Honopiilani Road, Lahaina. identified for real property tax purposes as tax map key 243005029, community plan amendment bill section five from residential to resort hotel, change in zoning bill section 2 from A1 apartment district to H3 hotel district, Maui Sands 1, a 1.154 acre parcel located at 3559 Lower Ho'opilani Road, Lahaina, identified for real property tax purposes as tax map key 244001052, community plan amendment bill section 5, residential to resort hotel, change in zoning bill section 3 from A2 apartment district to H4 hotel district. These properties are considered properties with a mix of timeshare, transient vacation rental users, limiting timeshare, and timeshare transient vacation users and leasehold consistent with resolution 26-110's purpose.

Member Cook, so these are either leasehold or timeshare properties?

Correct.

Okay, any further discussion? You okay, Ellen? That was a bad call. Okay, Member Rollins-Fernandez. I know you gotta go, I'm trying to make it quick.

Yeah, Member Cook, I think it was asked earlier if you had the properties formatted like this total units, total timeshares, total leasehold. Did you have that?

I think that's what I was asking earlier.

Oh, that was you that was asking.

Okay, I remember, and then he said yes, but I didn't see it. Okay, okay, okay. Mic.

Mic.

I don't have it listed, I do have the information. And the reason I took off Kahale Makai, it had 13 timeshares and it was a hybrid mixed use of long-term, short-term vacation rentals, kind of a chop suey. And although it had the 13 timeshares that originally would have met the criteria that we discussed during the TIG, it isn't 100%. Okay.

So for Maui Sands, do you know if, oh, I guess. If you can just start from two. Okay, so Kanaianalu, total units. I think it's 100% timeshare, and so is Maui Sands is 100% timeshare.

Total number of units?

56 for Maui Sands. Kahana Villages, 43, as he described earlier. And Kanaianalu is 80, did you say?

Correct.

80.

Leasehold.

Leasehold. And I believe...

They're 100% leaseholds as well. And the other two are timeshare, Kahana Village, Maui Sands.

No, leasehold.

They're leaseholds. Both of them.

All three of them are leasehold. Okay.

And it's all 100% leasehold?

I didn't get a text for one of them. Not Kahana Village, but Kanai Analu is 100% and so is Maui Sands. But we did, that didn't pass. But anyways, any further discussion?

Those three would meet the criteria.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, roll call, please. Chair. Yes, go ahead.

Did you get a second?

Yeah, members should be more on second.

Go ahead, Member Alex Fernandez. Mahalo, Chair. And while I appreciate my four colleagues, yourself, Chair, Member Cook, Member Poulton, and Member Sinensi doing the work and meeting eight times in the TIG, as you mentioned, it wasn't like super thorough. You had a limited amount of time and there's a consistent refrain I'm hearing from my colleagues using the TIG as the rationale for moving a certain way or using it as a shield because this is what the TIG decided. Not all of us were on the TIG, we're here now, we're making decisions now. We're trying to take our time, but we're also being rushed. And so I wanted to add that context to the discussion for the public that are watching because it's not, it wasn't infallible in its recommendations. It just, it did what it could with the amount of time it had, with the amount of resources that they were, you know, that they invited. And so... I appreciate the work that was done, but I will be making decisions on my own. Mahalo Chair.

Absolutely. I appreciate that. Thank you. I'm going to do a roll call, and this is for Member Cook's ASF and his amendments to include those three properties, Kanaianalu, Kahana Village, and Maui Sands 1 to the leasehold section criteria. Roll call, please. Chair Lee.

Hi.

Council Member Sugimura? Council Member Poulton? Oh, excuse me. Council Member Johnson?

No.

Is that no? He said no. It's a little bit soft, but we know what you meant. We can hear you. Council Member Rollins-Fernandez? No.

Council Member Cook? That was not soft. Member Cook, your turn.

Aye.

Council Member Sinensi?

Aye.

Committee Vice Chair Betonga?

Aye.

Committee Chair Uhu-Hodgins? Aye. Chair, that's seven ayes, no, six ayes, two nos, one excused. Member Palten, motion carries.

Thank you. And members, do we have any other proposed changes to this resolution 26.1.10? Seeing none, I'm now gonna do a roll call vote to approve 26-110 as amended several times. What else do we need to do, James?

Chair, apologies, staff just wanted to flag if the committee wanted to consider some of the corrective amendments that planning suggested. I think that the two of them are to correct the Halama Street properties to reflect their current community plan designation of single family. And then I think planning also suggested as a correction to change all of Milawai Ma'alaiya instead of just a portion.

Okay, yes, we can do that. To amend the community plan designation for 1-440-1444 and 1-470 Halama Street to single family and change the zoning for the entirety of Milowai Ma'alaya to H4 and then include also Kahana's Outriggers third property. So those are the amendments as well. but I will do a roll call. We'll do those and then I guess we'll vote again if you don't, yeah.

Chair, I'm sorry, was that a motion?

Yes, sorry, can I? I move, thank you. Seconded by Member Sugimura. Those are planning department's recommendations. Do we need a roll call? Happy to do it, yes.

Since I'm not familiar with all those recommendations, what do you recommend?

I'm fine with that.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay, happy to do a roll call. Roll call please for planning amendments. Chair Lee.

Aye. Council Member Siguemora. Aye. Council Member Poulton.

Excused.

Council Member Johnson.

No.

Council Member Rollins-Fernandez. No. Council Member Cook.

Aye.

Council Member Sinensi. Committee Vice Chair Patongan?

Aye.

And Committee Chair Uhu Hodgins? Aye. Chair, that's six ayes, two nos, one excuse. Member Paltin, motion carries.

Thank you very much. And members, now we're going to vote on the amended 26-110. Roll call, please.

Discussion on the main motion.

Go ahead.

Mahalo, Chair. Okay, so these properties include all the timeshares and single owners, which I'm not opposed to, but they're all together in one resolution. And leaseholds. And it includes the leaseholds. And so the leaseholds, I am opposed to. Okay. especially for the properties where the community plan designation did not envision transit vacation rental use in those areas, specifically the Ma'alaya area. As we went over and now available on Granicus for everyone to review is the owner occupied units that that have been reduced since 2015. And so when we received the presentation of the analysis of our housing inventory and how over time, we were losing housing because housing was being converted to vacation rental use. Our residential housing was going to tourists. And so even as we were trying to build housing for residents to live in, because a lot of the units that were also being lived in were being removed from our housing inventory, we were losing faster than we were building. The leasehold properties, because we're leasehold, were the more affordable units than the fee-simple units. And that's why a lot of them had a higher percentage of owner-occupied or tenants in them. And so the leasehold properties were the ones that would have a higher percentage rate of returning to our long-term housing inventory. And so we're not giving our residents the best shot at reclaiming housing. And yes, it's not gonna be housing for everybody, but as we said consistently, we need all kinds of housing. And a lot of these housing units were like the two bedroom, two bath. And the two bedrooms were the highest in demand when conducting the survey to see what was the need. what were the highest need, and it was two bedroom, and these are the two bedrooms, and we're just gonna give them up to the tourism industry, and that's pretty disheartening. Mahalo, Chair.

Thank you, Member Rollins-Fernandez. Any other discussion? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Followed by Chair Lee.

I'll be supporting this because these areas, besides the leasehold issue and the variable expense over time, they're older buildings and I think that the tax revenue for this can help us build newer structures and get homes for our local residents. I concur, I want homes for our local residents and these older buildings where they are, I'm familiar with them and I think it's best to have them be H3, H4 and collect money from them, thank you.

Thank you, Chair Lee.

Yeah, I agree with some of what Member Rollins-Fernandez said, but I think overall, as Member Cook said, the Ma'alaya condos and units are very old and have a high cost to them because of their age and the fact that they have problems with sewer disposal, which is very major and the cost keeps going up, thank you.

Thank you. Oh, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak against the motion. A lot of things, you know, this discussion has been ongoing, so I don't want to repeat myself. But I will say that, you know, the TIG wasn't balanced. I wasn't in the TIG. I do feel it was a bit rushed because you had so much on your plate. So, of course, there's some things in the TIG that I disagree with and I don't think it can, it doesn't hit my mark because I wasn't there to discuss it. I also say that, you know, before the fires, how many people in West Maui and Lahaina specifically were renters? 80% of Lahaina folks were renters, were renters. So they weren't the minority. They were the majority of our workforce. So this is just another slice of the pie that these folks aren't going to get. I feel like we're selling us out as policymakers. This is a sellout policy move. I think the idea that we had a chance and now the crumb with the cakes getting smaller and smaller with these slices of pie taking out until we eventually get the crumbs. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson.

Okay, Member Alex Fernandez. Mahalo, Chair, for my second and final. Sure. So for the Ma'alaya properties, taxpayers are paying for a lot of the wastewater, that infrastructure that we just approved twice in the past two budgets. And As was stated earlier in this meeting, number of units alone isn't what's gonna generate revenue. If generating revenue is your goal, then you should be looking at the value of the unit, not just like numbers. Otherwise, you're just gonna take everything and we just continue to pay, I don't know how much we pay, a lot to subsidize single family residents and the county keeps paying. It's just... Running on a hamster wheel. Mahalo, Chair.

Of course. Thank you. Any other discussion before roll call? Seeing none, roll call, please. And this is on Resolution 26-110 in its amended form. Roll call.

Chair Lee. Aye. Council Member Sugimura. Council Member Poulton. Excused. Council Member Johnson.

No.

I heard you. Council Member Rollins-Fernandez? No. Council Member Cook?

Aye.

Council Member Sinensi?

Aye.

Committee Vice Chair Patonga?

Aye.

And Committee Chair Uhu Hodgins? Aye. Chair, that's six ayes, two noes, one excuse. Member Paulton, motion carries.

Thank you. Members, let's take a five-minute recess, and then we'll continue discussion on 26-111. So let's come back at 3-29. Welcome back to the HOU meeting. It is 3.35 p.m. We just took a quick recess after we voted on resolution 26-110 and now we're moving on to 26-111. Before we go into voting and I make a motion on the floor, does anybody else have any other discussion or questions related to resolution 26-111? My recommendation is to pass, it's mine. Obviously I support it. But if anybody else has any questions, I just wanna make it clear in case it wasn't. These are the ones that in my opinion operate like a hotel. I'm not gonna go into the discussion of what it looks like to quack like a hotel. A lot of these were, suggested by the Planning Commission to not be Bill 9 affected. We didn't take that route and we are taking this route. and that is my discussion. You'll notice it is Wailea Ekahi I, Wailea Ekahi II, Wailea Ekahi III, Wailea Ekolu, the palms at Wailea I, Papakia, and the Maui Eldorado operate like a hotel. Maui Eldorado has community plan and hotel, and they all operate as hotel. Okay, so I have a motion to pass Resolution 26-111 by Chair Lee and a second by Member Sugimura. Discussion?

Do you have an amendment?

Member Cook, go ahead.

I have an amendment.

Okay.

Okay. My amendment would add three properties operating like hotels to the proposed bill attached to Resolution 26-111. These properties are noted on the Agenda's Exhibit 1. I move to amend Resolution 21-111 by adding three properties, Kamaoli Sands, Luanakai, and Mahina Surf.

I have a motion by Member Cook for his ASF to include three properties and a second by Member Sugimura. Member Cook, continue on your discussion.

All three of the properties are listed on the agenda as Exhibit 1, and under my motion would be included in the bills as follows. Kamaoli Sands, $15,000. 15.21 acre parcel located at 2695 South Kihei Road, Kihei, identified for real property tax purposes as tax map key 239004004, community plan amendment bill section two from multifamily to hotel, change in zoning bill section three from A2 apartment district to H4 hotel district. Luanakai is a 3.97 acre parcel located at 940 South Kihei Road, Kihei, identified for real property tax purposes as tax map key 239001006. Community plan amendment bill section two from multifamily to hotel. Change in zoning bill section three from A2 apartment district to H4 hotel district.

Thank you. I have a couple questions, so no. You didn't finish.

I got one more.

Okay, go ahead, sorry.

Mahina Surf is a 1.964 acre parcel located at 4057 Lower Hono P'ilani Road, Lahaina, identified for real property tax purposes as tax map key 243009005. Community plan amendment bill section three from residential to resort hotel. Change in zoning bill section two from A1 apartment district to H3 hotel district. These properties operate like hotels, consistent with the resolution's purpose.

Thank you. First, I would like to note that if you notice in the resolution, there are several properties, Wailea-e-Kahi I, Wailea-e-Kahi III, and Wailea-e-Kolu, as well as, and this is the first one, for Papakea, they say portion of. So there are parts of those properties are already zoned hotel. And we are just going to change the other portions that are not currently zoned as hotel to hotel. And then for Papakea and El Dorado, they do not need a community plan amendment as they're already listed under hotel for community plan. And so for Member Cook's ASF, for yours, to include yours, both Kamaole Sands and Luana Kai do not need a community plan amendment as they already are listed as hotel in community plans as it exists. I believe that's why you're adding it to section three for Kamaole Sands and Luana Kai.

Yes.

Yes, okay. I just want to say that for the record. And then Mahina Surf does need a community plan though. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Chair Lee, did you have discussion?

No, I was ready to vote aye.

Oh, okay. Member Senanti, I see your hand. Sorry, I didn't mean to call you by your first name. Hi.

Mahalo, Chair. So you said Luana Kai has... already a hotel designation?

Luana Kai, if we're putting it under Section 3, under Papakia and El Dorado, that means it has a community plan designation as hotel. Same with Kamo'ole Sands. And so it doesn't need the change in community plans unlike Mahina Surf and Wailea Ekolu, Wailea Kahi 1, 2, 3, and the Palms at Wailea.

But it does have an apartment zone right now?

They do, yeah.

Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. Oh, they all need community plan amendments. Okay.

So, Chair, for clarification, Lwanakai Community Plan Amendment Bill Section 2 from Multifamily 2 Hotel.

Okay. Okay.

And come all these sands, the same community plan amendment bill section two from multifamily to hotel.

Okay. They all need community plan. Okay. That was kind of my question. I was wondering why they were put under that section.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks for clarifying. So they all need community plan except I think it's Papa Camari Eldorado, but perhaps planning can clarify. Is it just El Dorado that has a community plan? Okay.

Just El Dorado, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Only the El Dorado will not need a community plan amendment as they already have the community plan designation as hotel. Okay, and the rest will. Thank you. Member Senanti, we will take up yours afterwards. Member Johnson, I saw your hand up.

Thank you, Chair. I have a question for the department. When is the South Maui Community Plan coming up? What's the schedule like?

Thank you for the question, Member Johnson. We have been coordinating as the charter mandates with the Department of Owebe Resources and wanting to ensure their full review as they were established between the plan being finalized. And so that has caused a lot of delays. And so we are definitely grateful for the council's patience in processing it, but we do anticipate transmitting it to you folks before the end of the year. And sooner than that, we are more ideally targeting... I mean, I'm not trying to, our staff is working extremely hard on documenting the differences between Corp Council opinion, Department opinion, OWEVI opinion. And so I'm super grateful for all of their efforts. And so sometime in August or September is what we're aiming for.

So the amendment today is talking about we're changing the community plan for some of them, right? So how does this interact? We're gonna change the community plan today if we vote on it, and then by, what'd you say, what's gonna happen to the community plan when we're gonna be working on it in just a few more months? We're gonna have to change it again? I see Director Takakura is on, I'm sorry.

Director, and then I have some thoughts to share as well.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair Uhuha-Jensen. Thank you for the question, Councilmember Johnson. We are aiming for July, maybe August. In terms of the timing of a community plan designation for a property in South Maui, you know, we have some flexibility there because we can either put them say you have a property that you want to redesignate to another to the resort hotels community plan designation we can kind of hold them there and then in the community plan process discuss it and approve it there or if you wanted to you could certainly designate it to the existing designations and then redesignate when we get to the south my community plan but that seems kind of cumbersome i would prefer that we kind of that's why we're trying to i mean i know i keep saying oh we're going to transmit it soon but um I'm pretty sure it's going to be in the next couple of weeks, but the timing would be ideal if we could do the designations when we do that community plan update process. Thank you.

So, Member Johnson.

How long have you guys?

Oh, I'm sorry. Just to let you know, this is a recommendation to the Planning Commission, and then they have 120 days to review. So we're definitely not solidifying anything today. All of this is a recommendation to the Planning Commission. They will review, approve, and then we will discuss when we get it back.

So I'm just curious how long, Director, has the administration had plans have the updates how long have you had them and what and you say hopefully within a month or two we're going to get them how long have you guys had them

Thank you for the question. So regarding working with OEV resources, that did take some time for coordinating because, you know, they do have a lot on their plate. But I believe we have what we need from them. And so we're just organizing and preparing the matrix so that you can see where we started, you know, with the draft plan, the advisory committee, the planning commission, and the department's recommendations to make sure that's all organized and clear. And then also OEV resources. So we've had a from OEV resources, probably like maybe in the last month, and we're just coordinating to make sure everything's organized in the matrix that we transmit it with.

Okay, when did you guys get it from CPAC, the CPAC?

That was probably in, no, I want to say November. I will have to go back and look.

Okay, around November? Let me see. In November of last year, I'm assuming?

I'm double checking because they all get mixed up in my head.

Okay.

The CPAC draft, I believe we, it began in, okay, so it began in October 2022, concluded November 2023. And then we took it to the Planning Commission in 2024 to March 2025. Okay. Wow.

It sure is a long time. Thank you.

Well, with the new part of the charter and the collaboration with Weeby Resources that didn't even exist at the time, that did put some time. But, you know, that's our first time. We'll get better and more efficient as we get this sorted. Thank you. Sorry about the delays, though. I'm very sorry about that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Good questions about the community plan. So Member Rollins-Fernandez just walked in. I'd let her know that we are talking about Member Cook's ASF to include Kamaule, Sands, Luanakai, and Mahina Surf. Does anybody else have any other questions about adding those three properties on to Bill, I'm sorry, Resolution 26111? Member Rollins-Fernandez, go ahead.

Okay, mahalo, Chair. I'm sorry if I missed it, but what is, so these are the properties that are hotel-like?

Yes.

And what was the criteria you folks discussed if I just missed it, sorry?

No, it's okay. For mine, they have lobbies. They operate like a hotel for Maui El Dorado.

Is that written somewhere? Are you following or just from memory?

Just memory.

Okay, so it's not written anywhere.

It's not written. And primarily, these are the ones that the Maui Planning Commission suggested we omit, at least mine, from Bill 9. Maui El Dorado has ILWU employees. And these are the ones that, yes, operate like hotels. lobbies, centralized service systems? And Member Cook can answer for his.

Same question, Member Cook.