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

Aloha Wina La. The time is now 1.32 and the recess meeting of September 30, 2026 reconvene. It's now October 2nd. If everyone can please silence their cell phones or other noise-making devices, that will help our cause. In accordance with the Sunshine Law members, if you are not in the council chambers, Please identify by name who, if anyone, is in the room, vehicle, or workspace with you today. Minors do not need to be identified. Also please see the last page of the agenda for information on meeting connectivity. My name is Tamara Poulton, and I'll be your DRIP Committee Chair today. We have

Aloha wina ala. Hafa adai kakou. I'm alone in a private workspace.

Thank you. And with us here in the chamber, we have Council Member Tom Cook. Aloha wina ala and hafa adai.

Aloha wina la and hafa adai, Chair. And aloha Friday.

Yeah, aloha Friday. Member Johnson is in a short meeting and he will come join us after. So he's excused at this time. We also have Council Chair Alice Lee. Aloha wina la and hafa adai.

Aloha we know a chair half a day and hope you folks had a good trip good to see my chickadees home safe and sound I'm home alone in my workspace with my animals of course thank you thank you and it was nice to get out in the wild and roam free

Next up, we have Council Member Kiani Rollins-Fernandez, who's excused at this time. And next, we have Council Member Shane Sinensi. Aloha wina ala and hapa de.

Aloha wina ala chair, half a day. Yes, just got off the boat and a little bit of sunburn, but we did get two plants of pili grass and keo keo at Kaho'olape. I'm here at my private residence and here by myself. Thank you, chair.

Thank you. And also last but not least, or not last, because we also have our vice chair on, but Yukile Sugimura, aloha wina la and hapa de.

Aloha wina la, hapa de, and looking forward to a productive meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. And we also have committee vice chair at this time, Nohe Uuhajins, aloha wina la and hapa de.

Aloha chair, half a day, everyone. I'm in my car for right now on my way to pick up my son. So if you don't mind, I'm going to turn off my camera, but listen along.

Thank you. Member Sugimura, are you alone in your workspace? Yes. Okay, thank you. This meeting of the Disaster Recovery International Affairs and Planning Committee of the Maui County Council is located on the traditional aina of the Kanaka'oibi who never ceded their sovereignty to the United States. We recognize that Her Majesty Queen Liliuokalani yielded the Hawaiian Kingdom to the U.S. in duress under threat of violence to avoid the bloodshed of her people. We further recognize that Hawaii remains an illegally occupied nation state by the U.S., as documented in a 2021 scholarly article for

I just wanted to make it clear to you folks that every single TMK has been changed by the planning department, but only the ones on this matrix only represent changes from the planning department's recommendation to the CPAC or CPAC to planning commission. Member Batongan, any further clarification question or anything?

Yes, sir. Thank you. So for the planning department, in your conversions, were there any properties in which their rights were diminished as a result of the conversion from the old classification to the new classification?

They were all if anything was diminished, it was because of additional staff or additional community input, and those would be noted in the spreadsheet.

Okay. But that one's not just because of the change in classification. That was because of consultation with the landowner, right?

I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything impacted as a result of the administrative conversions. Thank you, Jerry.

Sure thing. Anyone else? Any clarifications, questions, comments? Tamara, what number is that on Granicus? The book with the changes from, which one? The one with the changes from what it was in the Kihei-Makena plan to what it became, that one?

There's that one which is number three, granicus attachment number three. Okay. And then the other one that could be relevant is attachment 3B matrix of recommendations and changes. Okay. Okay. All right. So going back to where we were, I think we left off on page 79. Looking at Wailea, nobody has any further questions at this time about Wailea? Pardon me, Chair, can I make a comment? Sure.

So, um, yeah, we do have on attachment nine as well, which is the owner proposed white layer golf map. And, um, The booklet that we referred to the other day, Mr. Chan emailed us that he had submitted it for testimony. So if members of the public or members of this body that haven't gotten the hard copy because they haven't come in yet, it should be in the testimony um the booklet that we got from mr chan is is on granicus uploaded as his testimony as well so that's there and um as as we were stating i think yesterday it's not that the map is wrong it's the process where What the council recei

And on the attachment handout, what page is it? The attachment handout is labeled attachment nine. It should be in your granicus or a loose sheet of paper if you have the hard copy packet. Oh, that one is a different one, let's see. That one was a testimony one, wasn't it? That Member Cook is holding up. Okay.

Yes, I believe so. It says it's an attachment C's specific map approval and by planning commission motion 114. Okay.

What specifically did Mr. Chan ask for in his testimony?

Um... Well, in his testimony, the booklet that he gave us, he didn't present to the community plan advisory committee because he took in what things that it sounded like they wanted and then incorporating it to their plan and presented to the planning commission. He said that the Planning Commission adopted his proposal unanimously, but then there was outside conversations with the Wailea Community Association and whatnot where they wanted, I guess, retention of certain golf and holes and things like that. But then he mentioned, I guess, that it hasn't been like ground truth to the community t

Yeah still still learning fees Yeah, that's what I feel. Yeah Mr. Weltman

Thank you chair. So, um, yeah, this one, I won't call it contentious yet, but I'd say that there's different flavors and versions and as, um, he just stated, there's more to be to think. So I'm curious, this discussion, we're not making any decisions, but we're discussing it. How in detail and when are we going to

When we would really utilize, because we had designated Mr. Chan as a resource, I would think to me would be when we get to the areas of change and we get to the Wailea Gulf one, which is... on page 100 that would make the most sense to use him as the resource as we designated yeah because i think we designated christian and we designated matt from wylair community association i don't remember designating matt but i don't have objection to it i think we designated Mr. Frampton for the Kihei Mauka one, Mauka North Kihei one. So when we get to page 88, it would make sense to have him available t

So I think it'd be appropriate if we identify the day that we're gonna do that so the resource people could be available.

Yeah, either today or Monday-ish. We're still just looking at the sub-areas yet. But if we make good progress, we could potentially get to areas of change today. One thing that I did notice is In the areas of change, there are policies specific to a development. I don't believe West Maui Community Plan had that. And in attachment 3B, it does show the progression of those policies. And the policies are on page 89 and 90, which is a new thing. It might help with clarity for... project-specific policies, but we can get to that when we get to those pages.

Okay, because I think David Good, he's the president of the association, and he's online if we need to ask questions for him and stand in for Matt. I did designate Matt, if you think we look back at it. Both he and Kristin, and the reason was they're both both weighing in heavily and there's a little bit of disconnection. And then with the CPAC also to be able to clarify. So I think the three entities really need to be heard. So anyway, that's, thank you. Sure, sure.

Yeah, I think, and we can jump around depending on what resources are available. Like if we hit areas of change today and we don't have Mr. Frampton, but we have Mr. Chan or whoever, we can work around it because there are other like county-owned parcels in areas of change and like that, so we can flip around regarding. Uh-huh. At this time, I'd like to recognize Member Johnson. Aloha, and half a day.

Half a day, Chair and Council members, community members. Excuse my tardiness, but I'm here and ready to work. And if you could just direct me to what page we're on, I'll be ready.

Sure, we're on page 80. Okay, so we're on McKenna. The future growth areas, the big projects relate to page 98 and 99 for Honuaula. Page 102 to 103 for Makena Mauka. If there are a lot more culturally significant features, environmentally significant features, we can pull those out and either put them on two separate pages or one page, depending on how much information there is of both and have it meet the standards OCS set for font size and things like that. currently in mckenna it says the resident population is 158 daily visitor count is 305 total housing units are um 140 with like um almos

Yes. Um, Gulch's is left empty and it only mentions one stream. Um, Deputy Robinson, are you on?

Just from looking at the map for Makena and areas that are designated green open space, it may be another situation like how sub-area 6 Ahihikina'u is in that or even also sub area four, there may be more gulches or streams than are listed. And so the letter that we were going to send to them about sub area six, maybe we mentioned that um sub area four five are also light on gulches and if if they have any um information on those is is that kind of your understanding miss komkowicz that there may be other gulches or streams that we just aren't aware of the name of or they're not major

Okay, thank you. So we can just add that to the letter to Department of OEB resources about four and five if they know the names of any cultures or streams that weren't listed. And then for sub area four, did we mention about like where Mokapu and Kiawakapu beaches, would those be listed as government facilities or should it not be government facilities?

Okay. Kiawa, Kapu and Mokapu under environmentally significant features. Any other questions? Is that a legacy hand up member cook or a new hand?

It's my legacy hand with a new question.

Um, one of the things I want to highlight is the aspect of cultures and being open space. Um, the big picture as far as like within the land development and utilities, roadways, water lines, sewer lines, potential underground electric, et cetera. So when that's going to be designed, obviously, or I should say supported, obviously it's gonna be designed around the gulches and the open space. But if the map, I just feel like the map is like a reference and the actual, design and survey and people would have to demonstrate what that is and if it's on the map. I'm just afraid that the vagueness of

Yeah, if you recall, when we took this up on Wednesday and we revisited the action items, Director Molina had come up with alternative policies for 2.45, 2.46, and 2.47, but we were gonna take them up when we revisited the policies, but I think we... wanted them posted so that members and the public could see it before we talked about the revisit. So that is there to be different verbiage than what was because we did ask Director Molina and Ms. Komkowicz to see if they could work something out. So that should be posted up on Granicus and we will revisit it. it doesn't provide a specific amount

No, thank you. I really wanted to just sort of like, Thank you for reminding that we talked about an action item. I don't expect to discuss it today necessarily because we don't have a full council and we don't have all our reference persons. I was just, as we're going through here, because it has a big impact. And I'm stoked. I mean, in the low-impact development, like porous pavement, there's all kinds of really cool things that can be done. And having that area designated for it will improve what's done there a great deal. Thank you.

Yeah, so if anyone wants to look up what is being proposed by Public Works in partnership, I guess, with planning, it should be on Granicus revised policies for 2.45, 2.4.6, and 2.4.7. So that's pending still. So the lack of gulches or stream names was one thing. We can list various beaches that aren't necessarily maintained by government under environmentally significant cultures. I'm not sure if anybody really familiar with Makena or Wailea or Ahihi Kina'u. See anything information that they feel is missing but we can I We can add it in if anyone sees things missing, like on page 80, it talk

Yes. I have a question for planning. On the Silberia 5 map, McKenna, where it's at the end of the dark green of 670, and it's the golf course, apparently the golf course running through it, it's kind of like a beige, and I'm looking at the legend and I can't really connect what all that beige around that kind of bow, golf course thing is. It's got the agriculture mocha to the right.

Mr. Ramirez, can you put the map up on the screen and maybe Member Cook can direct your cursor to what he's talking about for Ms. Komkowicz. Is that area where his cursor what you're talking about? Yes.

Okay. Does it now correspond to small town center?

Okay. So small town center is more like pinky or something.

Yeah, now that you mention it, I see it up at the top. Sorry, my bad. Okay, so that's rural residential and that was an area that the project proponent or landowner developer asked to be less dense.

What's the difference in density between. Rural residential and residential.

I think rural residential is like minimum half acre lots or something, whereas residential... Is it half or a quarter?

Yeah, because of the state act, was it like 30 something where each residential lot must be allowed to build two ADUs. So that's, I guess, three units, one main dwelling unit and two accessory dwelling units per half acre.

Residential is one, two, and three, depending upon the lot size.

Eight parcels, maybe 24 units if you have two ADUs and a main dwelling on each.

Thank you very much. Any further questions before we move on to the areas of change? Okay. Okay, this is where we start having the rubber meet the road areas of change. The first up on the areas of change on page 84 of your draft booklet is Ma'alaya. And the change envisioned is that this area is ideally suited for multimodal development opportunities, mix of commercial, employment, residential uses, redevelopment of the area bounded by Honoapilani and Ma'alaya Road will create workforce housing close to transit and pedestrian-friendly area where residents can walk to shops, the beach, and har

Where is that that you read? 3.4, Ma'alaya?

Page 84, under the Ma'alaya heading, change envisioned subsection. Yeah. And then it talks about challenges and opportunities. Threat of wildfire redevelopment. And it has the area with the streams on page 85. And that triangular portion is envisioned as small town center. You can look from your matrix 3B. The parcels involved in that shaded pink triangle on page 85 correspond to the TMK on attachment 3B, page one. It looks as though there are six TMK And the Department of Planning's original change from the Kihei Makena designations to the updated community plan designation was to change it t

So they were commercial in the Kihei McKenna Plan. The Planning Department designated it as transit-oriented corridor, and then through the process, it was made to be small town center. Everyone understand that?

I'm just checking with, let's say, Ms. Komkowicz. The small town center gives the area and property owners more flexibility, right, than the other designations?

it gives more flexibility than just commercial, but I think it's a little less dense than what the planning department originally allocated as transit oriented corridors, but I'll let her fill in.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Sure. Member Patongan?

Thank you, Chair. If I remember correctly, there was a bill referred to Councilmember Cook's committee regarding these six TMKs. There was a bunch of cleanup that needed to be done because a bunch of them were still zoned interim. Can I confirm with the Planning Department that small town designation aligns with the proposal before the why committee? Because I just want to make sure I know that you have been working with the applicant on it, and I just want to make sure that the, um, change from T O C to small town still is in alignment with with that zoning work that you guys have been doing.

I believe that it needed to work with B2. Right now it's B2 and there were some odd little remnants in there that were like roadways that didn't exist and some open space.

Correct. So I did ask him and he said that small town center works with B2 and everything. He had no, it's fine.

Well, I just wanted to make, I had a feeling that the small town center was still pretty flexible. I just wanted to make sure that since the department was working with the applicant and the department had initially recommended different zoning, the new one, I mean, a different community plan designation that the new one still works. So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say I'm now at my parents' private residence. I do have a minor with me. Thank you.

Thank you. And then continuing on our attachment 3B, there's Maʻalaiʻa Mauka, which was a change from agriculture to open space. at the CPAC level, no recommended change from the CPAC to the Maui Planning Commission. I would assume that this is the parcel that the state purchased from Peter Martin, so it was in ag probably even at the Kihei Makena Community Plan. And then because the state and the county were trying to purchase it to kind of restore that, was it the Punakea or something watershed, Pohakea watershed, that... Well, we can ask directly to the CPAC Chair, but that would be my gues

Okay. So members understand kind of how the process went? Or Member Cook, go ahead.

My question is for planning. Can they still graze cattle on open space? Because I know that's part of the fire mitigation that was being planned. I'm just curious if that's compatible use.

Thank you. You wouldn't want to be plowing it up or doing something, but passive preservation.

Oh, so the original Kihei McKenna Plan had it as a project district. That would probably be from when Spencer Homes maybe times or something, I don't know.

Wow. Okay. So that's probably why Jesse Spencer was thinking of developing there because it had previously been a project district area. And then I guess he proposed something and then people said, no, they didn't want it and nothing happened. And now it's designated as open space. So there you have it. All right, so the next change envisioned on page 86 is the Central Maui Base Yard. So the Central Maui Base Yard is located east of Maui Veterans Highway. This is on page 86 of your draft booklet. At the northern extent of the South Maui Community Plan area, the existing developed base yard enc

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to have a question for, I assume, planning. In this map on the page 87, it has the Pulehu Gulch. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's a perennial stream, perennial gulch? Or is it imperial?

Ephemeral or intermittent? I would have to double check that before answering.

Okay. Yeah. So that's one thing I'm concerned about. The other thing is when we talk about 100 feet of kind of open space in a gulch or next to a gulch, does it matter the land use surrounding it? If it's a residential or if it's public quality public, it's not nearly as dirty as say a heavy industry. So does that come into play when you talk about planning? Should it be maybe 150 feet when we have it going through heavy industry?

I had another question regarding attachment 3B, page one, when it calls out the 100 foot from the Gulch specifically. Is that meant to be like a map change that is separate from the policy as we're considering different verbiage from Director Molina for the 100 foot buffer policy? because it's written in the recommended designation that this isn't necessarily based on the policy that if the policy goes away that the open space goes away or how do we interpret that? We know that there was a proposed policy with a 100-foot buffer. We know that Director Molina proposed different language, policy

Did the land owner that I guess asked for more than what was initially recommended agree to the 100-foot buffer?

So I'm not saying quid pro quo, but there was like a understanding of a give and a take kind of thing?

Okay. Yeah, so I mean, to me, regardless if we accept the policy with a specific number or the verbiage that Director Molina proposed, I'm supportive of a 100-foot buffer because of kind of what Member Johnson had said about the industrial uses. I think legally... They're not supposed to let substances run off from their industrial site to the Gulch anyway, but this is just a little added layer of protection because we all know things don't all the time work out the way that they're supposed to. So any further questions for any of our resources on this area of change, specifically Central Maui

Thank you, Chair. So that last sentence refers to Amalka North-South Collector Road. And I just want to point out that elsewhere in the plan, we call it a bypass. Those are two very different things and we got to be consistent. Seeing this difference now is helping me realize where I've been a little uncomfortable with talking about it because I didn't realize that people have been thinking about it in different terms. So a bypass, by definition, bypasses community. So it doesn't actually have ingress and egress to residential neighborhoods. If you think of the West Maui one, you'll notice tha

You think it should be changed to bypass?

Thank you, Chair. And some of the things I've read and talked to people, basically in order to get the federal support and state and to kind of move it up on the importance list, potentially to change the... The highway to alleviate traffic on the P. Lani Highway is essential. It's more to reframe it as, um. I don't want to call it an escape route, but evacuation. Yeah, but a necessary, a necessary evacuation route due to the fact that the primary intersection and key is in the. high tsunami zone. So that main intersection, besides it having mountain flooding, if it has on the old yellow pages

I don't know exactly. I don't know if bypass or... I'm just thinking that reframing it, I don't know the verbiage, but reframing it is not as convenience as through a necessity as what the criteria is. And then also that it is... to make it more of a high priority and make it as something that this isn't just like some optional, it'd be nice, it's something we really need. So I just wanted to weigh in on that. I don't know what the verbiage is.

That's what our West Milan community plan, that's the reason why the CDBGDR money was used for the northern terminus because there are some sections for tsunami, not extreme tsunami, but the tsunami where you couldn't get through if there was a tsunami. So that's how the matching state funding and the CDBGDR money was used for the northern terminus of our bypass. But Member Batangan may know more about which verbiage may be more appropriate or he might have his own question or comment.

I guess I had always assumed that they were asking for a bypass because that would more effectively serve as an escape route. The collector road would be more susceptible tool to bottlenecks, especially in high demand situations. And so Hearing the community feedback as to what they were asking for, I had assumed bypass. When I had read it elsewhere, I thought that was confirmed. hearing what the CPAC chair is saying now, you know, I'm starting to question that. But I think it's worth further consideration, given that there are different goals and different purposes for each. And, you know, we

So Mr. Weltman, in your discussions in CPAC, did you clarify the distinction between bypass or collector road and why the community preference was towards what it seemed like a collector road instead of a bypass?

Thank you, Chair. I didn't realize that the plan was calling for two. I had always thought it was one and that they were just being used interchangeably. So that may have just been me, you know, overlooking some details. But I'd like to add then that there's nothing stopping us from putting both on the plan map. You know, One would be largely government funded and would serve as a bypass and evacuation. The other would be more to serve the proposed new developments. We just need to be comfortable with the cost because these are both significant public infrastructure projects.

Yeah, and it could be a strategy depending on who's in the federal administration where we have both our bases covered, depending on who who's up next, I guess, like Mr. Weltman.

Sure, sure. Mr. Ramirez, if you could put up, I think it's sub-area, it's kind of sub-area two and three, I think. for either one of those. I think it's that kind of purple, purplish line.

So the road is not currently in existence or...

Okay, and then I guess Mr. Batonga, and if it was like a true bypass, it would be on the Mauka edge of the development and just kind of bypass around of it. But as it's like depicted to go through it, through all that development, that would fit more the definition of a collector road, unless it was like along the edge, the Mauka edge of the Maui Island Plan boundary or something. Is that the distinction between a bypass versus a collector road?

No, it's more about the limited amounts of access points because you want to keep the traffic flowing on a bypass, right? So if this one were to have ingress and egress to the proposed development, then it would be more like a collector road. Whereas you could do a bypass through here, you just don't have, you just have, access points at limited intervals. I mean, if this is the collector road that's being proposed, Mr. Waldman, what were you guys proposing for the bypass?

While we wait for them, did you have something to add?

Thanks. I just wanted to kind of have the discussion like what was just said. I'm envisioning that the landowners are contributing to these roads and not building these roads. If the landowners are... expected to like build each section of the road and pay for all of it, it'll never happen. And it's a community need. they're contributing the land, everybody's cooperating, they're doing the design for it. There's a whole lot of the contribution, but I've heard a few times as far as like, well, they're gonna pay for that road. And I'm just, I don't have any skin in the game. I'm not a developer,

Thank you. Mr. Weltman, do you have the Maui Island Plan bypass as it, oh, he's emailing it to you. Okay, then that makes this a great time for a recess. Come back at three o'clock, about? We'll gavel in at three o'clock if we have five members. Recess to three o'clock. for the reconvene meeting of september 30 we convene at 307 october 2nd and where we left off we were going to um show you the difference between the maui island planned um planned bypass and the north kihei mauka collector road mauka north kihei collector road sorry go ahead mr ramirez So the purple is what was envisioned as t

Yeah. And so members, if you see that little kind of rectangular Maui Island plan on the right hand side, that's the wastewater treatment facility, I believe. And so there kind of is the start of a road going up to the terminus of that neon green line. And then it goes through what becomes the Maui Research and Technology Park there. You see a South Niinau Street and a North Niinau Street, and that is what the Maui Brewing Company area there you can see. So that is kind of an existing road that is being developed through the Research Technology Park place, or project area. And then as you go m

That's recommended. Yeah. All right. So basically, I think what this policy is saying, like, is to consult regularly with a diverse stakeholder group. Um, during the development of North Kihei mauka. And, um, Director Molitao is online. Um, Director, do you have any comments or concerns about adding Department of OEB Resources as a listed entity to the stakeholder group regarding development of North Kihei Mauka?

Oh, okay. All right. Okay, so we're just reviewing these, not voting yet. We can go on to page 11, which has what turned into 3.4.2. Mr. Ramirez, if you want to put it up. So this CPAC original policy, as you can see on the far left, was pretty wordy. And then there were some revisions at the planning commission level to say, you know, comprehensive master plan will be established prior to the development of North Kihei Mauka, must be approved by South Maui, oh wait, must be approved by no, sorry, must address the following. Environmental watershed management, archeological and cultural preser

Okay. Um, remember, but, uh, remember, but Tongan.

Thank you, Chair. So Miss Conco, which Those are assessed through the process, but on a project-by-project basis, not as a comprehensive master plan. The way I read this is as if the Te He Mauka area is being treated as if it's a project district and there needs to be an overarching layer where all of those criteria are addressed. Because otherwise, you're not going to have a comprehensive plan. You're only going to have a piecemeal plan if you require each individual landowner and each individual project to do those through the process that you just described?

Okay, and if that's the requirement, then whose kuleana would it be? Because normally a master plan or a project district is a single landowner. In this case, it would be several. And it's not clear how we would require them to address those criteria.

Mr. Whitman may also want to chime in on an answer for you.

Okay, so it is only two landowners. Yes. Which essentially means that before one can move, the other will have to also comply.

Okay, so back to the planning department. So the expectation would be that since there's only two landowners, they would each go through the uh entitlement process which would include all of those component pieces and that essentially before one can build the other has to comply with their land use entitlements an environmental review

Okay. It was really helpful to hear from Mr. Weltman that there were only two landowners. probably realized that when we were elsewhere in the plan looking at that um section but you know when you don't have the map up in front of you it that part was lost on me so that's helpful i'm just trying to understand mechanically what the expectation will be um and if they're already committed to it then great okay remember uu hodgins

Thank you, Chair. I have a couple of questions, but this is a recess meeting, yeah? And then Wednesday, we did make Mr. Frampton a resource. I think he's available if we do have questions, but I have a couple questions before we call on Mr. Frampton if he's available. One, I think the primary landowners are only two where maybe the homes are going to be, but I don't think it's only two if number four is going to include a direct connection to the Veterans Highway. I think that probably includes another landowner. So I just wanted to say that. For the detailed land use, I wanted to maybe hear f

Okay, okay. Neighborhood center. Did you want to address her point as to direct connection to Veterans Highway? Is that across another third or fourth landowner?

So that connection portion may add a few more landowners, Bayer, DHHL, state?

Okay. And then, Member Johnson, was that your hand up?

I think he's giving us a disclosure that he's in a ferry with other passengers and we may lose him soon because we could barely hear what he was saying just now. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions on 3.4.2? Did you want to ask Mr. Frampton if he's on?

I did have a question when you were saying the road needs to be done, and that it's being done in phases. Before anyone starts, is there a way... Like, I mean, would you, before you start and you get to that level of detail, like maybe like of changing the zoning or district boundary amendment, would you lock in the road location and dedicate an easement or up until you do the change in zoning, the roadway is still fluid and movable, I guess is the question, right? Say you don't build out the whole entire roadway up front, could the whole entire easement for the roadway be dedicated up front?

Kind of. You know this, I think when we did the site visit to Kihei Mauka, they gave us this map here. And I see this kind of, I guess, conceptual collector road through the middle. And you said the landowner's contribution will be the land. Is this road through the middle part of their internal infrastructure that they would develop, or just donate the land and they expect someone else to develop this road?

because what we were kind of discussing when we were looking at this Mauka Collector Road versus the Maui Island Plan, South Maui Bypass Road and other iterations of the road, that these are internal roads to each of your villages and stuff like that, but that this one, this connection from Maui Research Technology Park through to, Waipuilani Village across the Waipuilani Gulch may not be something that the owners or developers considered because it's from kind of an existing project to your folks' new project across a gulch. So that looks like the government would have to come in and assist w

Yeah. I mean, either way, when I look at it, I envision that portion the government would need to step in on, but the other sections... We've heard from Director Molina, you know, the Gulch Crossings are the most expensive portion of it. Then you folks, landowner or developer, may do the internal road, but not necessarily the Gulches or something?

And if, say, maybe... Like you're saying, if the first developer had to go through and do the entire road, it wouldn't happen. But even in an unpaved version, strictly for evacuation, could that happen? Or it's not really a feasible talking point because of the gulch crossings?

So they're looking at right now like some non-permanent but just usable other routes to get out kind of thing?

Okay, members, I monopolized Mr. Frampton quite a bit. Is there anyone else that has questions for him on anything that we've covered so far? No?

Oh, Member Cook? I would just say, Mr. Frampton, is there anything that you want to weigh in on?

So what do you foresee ballpark as far as having a conceptual master plan? Because you can't really do roads and drainage and all that until you have it more solidified. Ballpark.

So a lot of the water is coming down to the property from Malka Branch property. Is there any activity to looking at working with agencies and stuff to mitigate some of the floodwaters that are coming down?

Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Frampton at this time? Okay, moving on then. We have 3.4.3 still on page 89 of your draft booklet, which correlates to... page 13 of attachment 3b. Mr. Ramirez, if you can, thank you. So we see what the CPAC started out with, about watershed management system and whatnot. And then the Planning Commission kind of condensed what they wrote, as you can see. And then in 3.4.3 on page 89, it became, before development, a comprehensive watershed management system for the North Kihei Mauka will be designed and implemented using green infrastructure to mitigate e

Oh, okay. Chair, what paragraph is that? It's page 89, policy 3.4.3. And I think this is what Mr. Frampton was alluding to when he was talking about the ED of Malama Haleakalā. Mr. Weltman, any comment on the changes that evolved on this? Do you feel that it sufficiently makes your guys' policy true to form but a little bit more succinct? Or what are your thoughts?

Thank you. Yeah, I think when they do take out the specificity of a policy, it broadens it up for a variety of other solutions that could also work. But, you know, also makes it shorter to read and hopefully understand. Members, any comments before we move on? No? Okay. Moving on to 3.4.4 on page 89, which is corresponding to page 14 of attachment 3B. Mr. Ramirez, if you can put up the evolution of this CPAC original draft policy, members can see what it started out as per the CPAC version. some minor revisions at the planning commission level and then it ended up as Before development in Nort

Okay. And would it be okay to say input of cultural practitioners or the Department of OEB resources? Or just put Department of OEB resources because they have cultural practitioners? Or should we check with Director Molitao?

Director Molitao, are you still with us?

Okay. Mr. Weltman, being as this was prior to the formation of Department of OEB Resources, and a lot of the previous things where we referred to cultural practitioners, we had replaced it with Department of OEB Resources. Do you see any concern? Would you add or replace...

Okay. So just preference for consistency then.

All right. Members, any further discussion on 3.4.4? Seeing none, we can move on to 3.4.5. Oh, sorry. I guess for Mr. Frampton, if you're still on, do you have knowledge of any AIS having been done on your lands that you're consulting on? Or is it all raw and it would have to be done anew? We can't hear you.

Okay, and then the known sites, was it the type that they would all be preserved or was there a requirement to preserve like ranch sites, historic or whatever?

And has a preservation plan been made for the sites that were significant yet? Or that would be more at the changing zoning phase?

Okay, great, great. Okay, moving on to what became 3.4.5. On page 15 of attachment 3B, it started out as a CPAP policy that you can see there on your far left. started out as prior to any occupancy and then at the MPC it's prior to or concurrent development of North Kihei Mauka must be a two-lane connector road that connects directly from East Lipua to Veterans Highway with and adjacent walking and biking paths separated from the roadway by landscaping. So they kind of changed it a bit. And then per drafting guidelines, it would say, before or concurrent with development of North Kihei Mauka,

So you guys weren't supportive of the separated bike path and landscaping?

Oh, okay. All right. And then, Mr. Weltman, if you wanted to clarify if that was...

Okay, maybe if we can hear from Mr. Hopper as to his interpretation of the language on 3.4.5. Is it that before the entirety of the North Kihei Mauka finishes, that road needs to be completed? Or is it as the first portion is developed, it needs to be completed or I guess whatever it is that you interpret 3.4.5 to say, would it fit what Mr. Frampton said about by phase, by each phase, that portion of the roadway is done and then before the entirety of the development called North Kihei Mauko with various landowners and villages, that it needs to be finished like how would you legally interpret

Yeah, I guess, I mean, from what I heard from the community, they'd want it before, but go ahead, Member Cook.

Thank you, Chair. I really want this road. I want everybody to know that. The challenge I see in 3.5, it says there must be a two-lane collector road that connects directly from East La Polla to the Veterans Highway with adjacent walking and biking paths separate from the roadway by landscape. That's through property that they don't own. It's through... So that's where the community... continually lobbying and advocating the county the state everybody we need it we need it we want it we want it to advocate to make that happen but to have it contingent on the developer that he can't finish he c

So the, and so, I mean, I'm, I really want us to work on this road, I mean, the aspect of the community. So thank you for that.

Yeah. I hear what Member Cook is saying, right, and we don't want developers to fail even before they have a chance to start because we put in things in the community plan that obstructs their ability to move forward. So I'm just curious, I guess, Rory, the recommendation that you're making, sorry, can somebody put it in the chat? in chat or can we see it as a comparison?

Because I think it's kind of major, right? We're not voting on anything today. I think his recommendation was to do it by each phase.

Okay. But we're hearing from the CPAC that it's not something they agree with?

I'm not sure if it was necessarily from the CPAC, but it was the testimony that we heard kind of in person the first Monday of the kickoff was that they wanted it from the community, not so much the CPAC. The CPAC wrote, I guess, exactly what they wanted. And you can see it on page 15. No, sorry, not 15. Oh, yeah, page 15 of attachment 3B.

Okay. And I guess, Rory, we'll look for your testimony and you have what you would recommend there, right?

And the alternative would be to add to P.E. Lonnie Highway, which in times of heavy transit is congested already, is what you're saying, Mr. Weltman? The alternative to not having the full build out of the road is to come out on P.E. Lonnie Highway, which is a problem in terms of evacuation as it is.

I mean, realistically, in terms of a tsunami, everyone in those Kihei Mauka would be out of the tsunami inundation zone. So anyone that is below P'ilani Highway could go up into those subdivisions if the specific... disaster was tsunami like in terms of fire i think it would be more realistic depending on which direction the fire comes from that you need a way out that way but for tsunami everyone could just go mauka not necessary to get away from the danger but i think like fire is one of those like where would you go if it was coming from Say, Makai Tumauka or something along those lines. Bu

I think that, When that tsunami happened and the roads got congested, I think it's a very relevant focal point. They didn't at that time need to be... It shouldn't have been congested because people didn't need to evacuate. They didn't understand. But the event of everybody trying to get on at one time definitely demonstrated that it's like log jam.

Yeah, and a tsunami is a different... type of emergency than say a fire, which a fire could create a log jam and that you would need to get out of it. So just the concern is still relevant, but maybe for a different type of disaster.

Exactly. I think education, people's fear, my perspective, people's fear in the community about being trapped potentially because we only have one outlet is real. considering what happened in La Haine. But I think it is also overemphasized because of the various types of disasters and types of crisis. A tsunami at my house, I live about 160 feet above Chem 3, and we just stay home. But for hurricanes, there's a different type of a situation, sometimes to stay home, sometimes you have to get to the evacuation center and there could be congestion there. So I totally agree with the community and

Member Uhu Hodgins, did you have your hand up?

Yes, sure. Thank you. I don't disagree that this road is needed and probably needed now. As Mr. Weltman said, he said the road is needed regardless. Like even without this project, this road is... needed as we heard um so that means as a community for those who already live in kihei should probably either we can do a community facilities district and we can hui up some funds so that everybody who's going to use that road can pay for that road or the county can help with the infrastructure because we're going to get to the next one at six where it says you know we plan to help with the prop pro

Yeah, and listening to you talk gives me the idea that sooner than later, MPO should do that route study, and maybe that should be an additional policy in here as we're going through steps of it. And then the CFD idea maybe for the gulch crossings. Do the gulch crossings... prior to because like everyone says we need this road now and then um the connections to the gross gulch crossings just be a graded route for emergency evacuations or whatnot but um this yes thank you chair Yeah, so if everybody marinate on that in their brain over the weekend, maybe somebody can call up Miss Apo Takayama a