Housing and Land Use Committee Meeting on Haiku Fire Station Bills (August 10, 2026)

The Housing and Land Use Committee of the Maui County Council reconvened on August 10, 2026, to consider Bills 89, 90, and 91, which would amend land use designations for a 6.097-acre portion of TMK (2) 2-7-007:008 in Hāmākualoa for the proposed Ha‘ikū Fire Station. Oral testimony had been closed at the prior meeting; 68 written testimonies were received. The meeting featured extensive discussion on archaeological compliance, water supply, and unresolved native tenant rights claims, culminating in a recess to executive session for legal consultation and a decision to continue the meeting on August 24, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Oral testimony was not taken; the committee acknowledged 68 written submissions received via eComment. No oral public testimony was heard.

Discussion Items

• Project Overview (Temporary Chair Tamara Paltin): The three bills would reclassify state land use from Agricultural to Rural (Bill 89), amend the Pa‘ia-Ha‘iku Community Plan land use designation from Agriculture to Public/Quasi-Public (Bill 90), and change zoning from Agricultural to P-1 Public/Quasi-Public (Bill 91). The project is county-funded; no federal funds are used. The process is not under RCD9 (recovery directive for Lahaina).
• Archaeological and Cultural Compliance (Dr. Janet Six, OED Resources; Jay Raposa; Mike Dega): An Archaeological Inventory Survey (AIS) was completed in 2010, covering the project area and waterline corridor via pedestrian survey and 11 trenches. One historic property (a 1940s rock wall) was identified. No subsurface cultural features were found on the 6.1-acre footprint. For the waterline, additional 100% AIS monitoring was recommended to avoid inadvertent burials. Ground-penetrating radar may be considered after site clearing. Dr. Six noted that the county has redesigned projects in the past to preserve in situ finds.
• Water Infrastructure (Diane Kodama, AECOM; Jason Miyabuchi, DWS): Three water meters are planned: two domestic for the fire station and one fire line for an on-site 40,000-gallon tank. The meters are sized for the fire station; no additional capacity is available for agriculture on the remaining 20 acres without new meters, which are not on the priority list. Catchment water could support agriculture, per the Department of Agriculture.
• Native Tenant Rights and Title Challenges (Kaneali‘i Williams, descendant and native tenant): Mr. Williams argued that the county’s title to the property, derived from Land Patent 6553 to Florence Wood (1916), is invalid. He presented extensive documentation (exhibits A–P) asserting that the land is private property under Royal Patent 383 and Land Commission Awards from the Great Māhele (1850s), and that native tenant rights of his ‘ohana were never extinguished. He claimed the Newlands Resolution did not transfer this private property to the U.S. territory, and that the Land Patent lacks a president’s signature as required by the Land Act of 1895. He stated that any construction on the site would infringe on his rights and could lead to litigation, as the county’s title insurance policy does not cover claims based on earlier instruments not in the public record. He expressed openness to negotiation only with his attorneys present.
• Departmental Responses: Planning Director’s office (Zachary Stackhouse) noted that zoning is a legislative action and does not depend on ownership; the department’s land use recommendations stand. Director Kapono‘ai Molitau of OED Resources stated his department’s role is to uplift natural and cultural resources and would not oppose native tenant rights.
• Feasibility of Alternative Site D (Mark Roy, project consultant): The feasibility study examined multiple sites; Site D (state-owned) was considered but deemed less advantageous due to infrastructure requirements, ownership, and the need for a new Maui Island Plan amendment, which would restart the entire approval process.
• Executive Session: The committee voted 6-0 (with 3 excused) to recess and convene in executive session at 1:00 p.m. under HRS §92-5(a)(4) to consult with legal counsel on the council’s rights, duties, and liabilities. Deputy Corporation Counsels Nahulu Nunokawa, Catherine Hall, and Nancy Zhao attended. The executive session was held and then adjourned; the open meeting reconvened at 2:26 p.m.

Key Outcomes

• No final action was taken on Bills 89, 90, or 91.
• The committee recessed the open meeting to August 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., at the same location (Planning Conference Room, Kalana Pakui Building) and via the same Microsoft Teams link, with the intention to possibly hold another executive session to continue legal consultation.
• The executive session resulted in no public disclosure; the committee will reconvene to further discuss the bills and legal issues.