Embedded Files
Schedule
Schedule
Supplemental EIS Overall Schedule
EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN): A brief summary of the project will be prepared and distributed to state, county, and federal agencies for comment.
Community Scoping Meeting: A meeting will be held to gather community feedback, with a target date of December (year not specified).
Technical Studies: All sub-consultant reports (Traffic Impact Analysis, cultural documents, drainage reports, etc.) are requested no later than January 15, 2026.
Draft SEIS: The team aims to publish the Draft SEIS by April 1, 2026. This will undergo another formal review period.
Final SEIS: The goal for final completion of the process is September 30, 2026.
About EIS
About EIS
343-5 (d) "The governor, or the governor's authorized representative, whenever an action proposes the use of state lands or the use of state funds, or whenever a state agency proposes an action within the categories in subsection (a) "
11-200.1-7 Identification of approvling agency and accepting agency
Meetings
Meetings
Members
Members
Joji Matsumoto: Program Manager, School Facilities Authority (SFA)
Liz Lee: Planning Officer, SFA
Kirk Tanaka: Civil Engineering Consultant for SFA
Michael (Mike) Summers: Planning Consultants Hawaii; leading the SEIS
John Summers: Planning Consultants Hawaii; assisting with the SEIS
Kainoa Harcadjo: SFA team; community outreach and cultural liaison
Hokuao Pellegrino: Cultural Consultant
Chris Hong: MKThink; assisting SFA with strategic planning and design
Shrab Rashid, Andrew Scher: Fehr and Peers; Traffic Consultant
Trevor Yucha: Project Manager, Cultural Surveys Hawaii; managing historic preservation review (SHPD)
David Sellers: Hawaii off-grid architecture group
State Land Use Commission
State Land Use Commission
2025/10/20 Mike Summers
Per HAR 11-200.1-30 a coordination meeting is required between the new Approving Agency (HISFA) and the original Approving Agency (State LUC) to confirm that a SEIS for the larger school is needed.
Scott suggested that we meet jointly with the Office of Planning & Sustainable Development (OPSD) and the State LUC. The meeting would have the following objectives:
Brief the OPSD and LUC on the proposed change to the original EIS;
Confirm the need for the SEIS because of the larger school's increased impacts, and;
Confirm that the HISFA will serve as the Approving Agency.
A new Administrator of the Land Use Division at OPSD will begin work the 1st week of November. Scott suggested we schedule the meeting during the 2nd week, so the Administrator will be available.
We can further discuss this at out 4 PM meeting tomorrow.
Zoning
Zoning
10/23/2025
Explanation for School Property and Zoning Discrepancy
There is a discrepancy between the official "school" district zoned in the Waikapu Country Town (WCT) ordinance (Maui County Code 19.96) and the actual boundaries of the current school property.
19.96
Map (Yellow is the new purchase)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A87Gb369WBnR1lesvPBx3kJ87GRbv10m/view?usp=sharing
This difference is the result of a project expansion that occurred after the original ordinance was established.
Original Plan: Initially, the WCT was planned to host only an elementary school. A separate middle school was slated for the Wai'ale Community Development.
Project Change: The Wai'ale project was terminated several years ago.
Site Expansion: Following the Wai'ale project's termination, Senator Hashimoto requested an expansion of the WCT school site so it could accommodate both an elementary and a middle school.
Land Acquisition: This expansion was achieved through a land purchase agreement for the "main street area," which was not part of WCT's original education contribution. [See map of acquired area: link]
This sequence of events is why the current school property does not align with the map in the existing ordinance.
Zoning Status
We consulted with Jefferey Ueoka, legal person for the WCT development, who opined that a zoning revision is not necessary.
Furthermore, we have presented our plan to the County planning department multiple times. While they did not raise this zoning discrepancy as an issue, we acknowledge that we have not yet explicitly asked for their formal confirmation on the matter.
Joji
10/24/2025
There is a pretty good argument for determining that the Main Street district allows for the proposed uses: These include:
The Main Street district identifies "open space", "civic uses", and "park" as permitted uses within the District. The proposed site plan identifies these types of uses occurring within the Main Street zoning. Note that we should overlay the zoning map onto the site plan to confirm this.
The Civic Building lot type is permitted within the Main Street district. The Civic Building lot type is described as: "A lot located and designed to accommodate public or quasi-public uses such as educational, religious, recreational, charitable, governmental, and philanthropic institutions." The Civic Building lot type is the appropriate lot type for the proposed school.
The Main Street district permits "Education, Specialized". While "Education Specialized" is not equivalent to "Education, General" it does permit education uses within the Main Street district.
The purpose of the Main Street district is to "create a second walkable town core to service Waikapu country town residents ..." The school frontage along Olohe Street will facilitate safe bicycling and walking to and from the school and to Main Street businesses. It will also create a beautiful, landscaped open space, establish civic uses, and a parklike setting along Olohe Street, which is consistent with the existing permitted uses within the Main Street district. Moreover, the proposed school will bring significant visitor traffic to Main Street, creating an economic engine for the business located along Main Street as well as demand for conveniently located housing. This is consistent with the purpose of the Main Street district.
On the other hand, the Planning Department could take a strict position, arguing that the open space, civic, and park-like uses proposed along Olohe Street are "accessory" to the "Education, general" use, which is not permitted within the Main Street district. They may also argue that "Education, specialized" is not equivalent to "Education, general".
Inevitably, the permissibility of the proposed use within the Main Street district needs to be confirmed with the Planning Department. Do you know if Jeffery Ueoka consulted with the Planning Department's Zoning Administration and Enforcement Division regarding this issue? If not, it would be prudent to engage the Department during the SEISPN and/or subdivision process.
All the best,
Mike
10/24/2025
No, unfortunately we haven’t run this by Planning.
If memory serves correctly, I thought we had discussed that the elements that would be in the Main Street District would be geared towards “civic space” uses which would be defined as, “[p]ublic uses that serve a unique community purpose such as a community green, square, plaza, park area, recreation facility, open space, playground, pedestrian path, bikeway, trail, roadway, community garden, farm plot, or natural or historic area worthy of preservation.” The list is not exhaustive, and it was my understanding that a “school” is a public use and that this school was intended to be a part of the community and the areas in the Main Street District would be geared towards the community. Of course, I know many things have changed since we first discussed this matter…so I’m not sure if this is still the case.
Mike brings up some excellent arguments, but since “education, general” is not specifically listed as a permitted use in the Main Street District, it may be helpful to reach out to ZAED to get a determination on whether the proposed uses in this specific area are allowed. This will determine whether we must go through the process to amend Chapter 19.96 to either allow “education, general” uses in the Main Street District or change the “zoning” of the area to the Residential or Education district.
The Subdivision is underway please see attached Preliminary Approval Letter, which contains the attached condition:
As Mike mentioned, the Civic Building “Lot Type” is allowed in the Main Street, Residential, and Education Districts, so we should be okay in that regard.
It may be best for Mike to reach out to ZAED as part of the SEISPN process. Hopefully Mike can convince them to allow the school’s proposed uses on the area so that we do not have to amend Chapter 19.96, MCC.
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to further discuss.
Jeff
10/30/25 Mike
For our meeting with the Planning Department (TBD), we will need to present both the site plan and an exhibit that overlays the zoning ordinances controlling plan onto the site plan. The area of particular concern from a zoning perspective is the portion of the site plan within the Main Street zoning district.
Please note that the Main Street district identifies "open space", "civic uses", and "park" as permitted uses within the District. It appears that the site plan places these uses within the District, but we need to confirm this during our presentation. Our argument will be that although "Education, General" is not a permitted use within the Main Street district, the proposed open space, civic space, and park-like uses are permitted. Thus, as long as these uses remain within the Main Street zoning, a zoning change would not be required.
David and/or Kirk, have you prepared an overlay of the Waikapu Country Town's Controlling Plan onto the site plan? If not, can you prepare this exhibit?
A link to the ordinance is provided below:
I've also attached the approved preliminary subdivision plat and the Land Use Designation, which includes the Controlling Plan.
All the best,
Mike
LUC & OPSD
LUC & OPSD
11/13/25 Tom Eisen, Senior Planner, Environmental Review Program, Office of Planning and Sustainable Developmen
Upon further review, I realized I overlooked a quirky nuance of the EIS rules, namely HAR Section 11-200.1-32(b), which deals with the retroactivity aspect of the current rules coming into effect in 2019: namely, “HAR Chapter 11-200 (the “old” rules) shall continue to apply to environmental review of … actions which began prior to the adoption of chapter 11-200.1, provided that … (2) for EISs, if the EISPN was published … prior to the adoption of this (11-200.1) chapter and the final EIS has not been accepted within five years from the implementation of this chapter, then the proposing agency or applicant must comply with the requirement of this chapter.” The Waikapu EIS did not meet both parts of this “two-part test” that would enable the new/current rules to apply.
I believe the intent of this clause was to provide that actions still under active HEPA review during the time of the rule change would continue under the same rules that were in effect when the HEPA review began, as long as the review finished up within 5 years after the new rules came into effect (i.e., August 2024). If the EIS was not completed by then, the new rules would kick in.
Since both the EISPN and the Final EIS for the subject Waikapu Country Town were published/accepted (in 2017) prior to the implementation of the current rules, bizarrely, the new rules say that a Supplementation of this “old rule” EIS would need to comply with the old, repealed rules; this is neither practical nor plausible.
I think a workable solution to this conundrum is to drop the concept of a “Supplemental” EIS, which really isn’t much different from a “normal” EIS, and proceed with “simply” preparing a new EIS for the newly proposed school site; in fact, this path would eliminate the need for the separate and unique determination of whether a supplemental EIS was required. This determination requires coordination between the LUC and the Governor’s Office, and also has to be submitted to us for publication, so eliminating it would save time and effort.
Additionally, a new EIS (properly scoped to focus on the “current” changes to the school site and any associated changes in residential density caused by the relocation of originally planned housing in the new expanded school site) could heavily reference the old EIS, as authorized and maybe even encouraged by HAR Section 11-200.1-12. This, along with the fact that supplemental EISs follow the same content and process requirements as “normal” EISs, and additionally, that the rules in effect when the original Waikapu EIS was reviewed have been repealed all seem to suggest that preparing a new EIS under the current rules, rather than calling it a Supplemental EIS may very well be the appropriate path forward.
11/13/25 Rudy
Thanks, Tom, for the follow-up! What do you think of the feasibility of them doing an EA instead of an EIS given that buildout of Waikapu Country Town is already approved and the impacts for the project area at that buildout has been substantially disclosed in the prior EIS such that they are examining the delta between the original EIS impact and the expanded school impact? Or might the optics on that warrant a full-blown EIS? In either case, the SFA would still need to request from the GOV delegation of accepting authority to itself?
11/13/25 Tom
While I’ll leave the musings regarding the optics of the decision (of which pathway to clear HEPA requirements) to those folks with their fingers on the pulse of the interested community, I will reiterate and concur with Ruby in that the focus of this new environmental review should appropriately be on the “delta” between the action and impact already studied in the original EIS and the impact of the currently-proposed expanded school proposal. If this new, unstudied impact is likely to “hit” any of the significance criteria in the rules (per HAR 11-200.1-13), then a (Supplemental or new) EIS should be prepared; if this impact is likely to fall “under” the significance threshold, then an EA would be appropriate.
A question then is, who gets to make that determination related to Significance? In a normal situation (whatever that means anymore), SFA as the proposing/determining agency has the authority to determine what level of HEPA review is appropriate. If they say an EA is adequate because a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is anticipated, then they also have the authority to make the subsequent determination that the eventual final EA indeed supports a FONSI. Or theoretically, after considering the objective analysis in the final EA, they could determine that the proposed action will likely have significant impacts and then prepare an EIS. So clearly, that consideration of “significance” is important and key to deciding which path to venture down from the outset. If a decision is made to prepare an EIS (either at the outset or after the final EA), then the authority to accept that final EIS resides with the Governor (unless that authority is passed down to SFA as has been mentioned).
Something to remember is that if the EA path is selected, then the rules do not inherently require consultation with the new (Governor) and original (LUC) accepting authorities on the Waikapu Country Town’s EIS as to the need for a Supplemental EIS, and also no need to get the acceptance authority delegated to SFA, because for EAs, the authority to make a FONSI determination is already vested with the proposing agency (SFA). EAs are never “accepted,” so there is no need for an accepting authority.
But from the perspective of transparency and full disclosure, it probably makes sense to continue the already-started consultation process and keep both the Governor’s Office and the LUC in the loop as decisions are pondered and made for this important project.
Of course, this situation is slightly different than “normal” in that there is an accepted EIS that addresses some aspects of the proposed situation, which raises the question of Supplemental vs New if the EIS pathway is selected (I personally feel that the EA path is still a very valid consideration notwithstanding the existence of the EIS, but this is where the subjective notion of “optics” gets injected in the seemingly objective consideration of “significance…).
In response to my follow-up comments yesterday about the nuanced language in the rules about which version of the rules might apply to a supplemental EIS, Mike pointed out that a similarly “old” EIS was supplemented under the new rules, seemingly not consistent with the language in the current rules. Our perspective was never sought, nor rendered, on that matter of which rules should apply to that Supplemental EIS; I’d venture to say it was an oversight by all parties to that process, the consultant, the accepting authority, us, the general public, any project detractors, etc. It successfully slipped through a crack… While we (ERP) don’t go out and pursue possible infractions of the process, we do try to make a point of identifying red flags when we see them, with the goal of eliminating potential legal challenges based on allegations of “faulty procedures.” We merely point out language in the rules that may have bearing on the matter, and leave it up to the various stakeholders to act as they see fit.
11/17/25 Mike
Following up on our recent meetings with the LUC/OPSD and the Planning Department, PCH will start preparing the HRS Chapter 343, Environmental Assessment (EA). There are three primary differences between the SEIS and the EA. First, the EA will not require the preparation and processing of the Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN); Second, the EA does not require a community scoping meeting following the submittal of the EISPN; and Third, the EA has a 30-day commenting period, whereas the EIS has a 45-day commenting period.
The cost of preparing and processing the EA should be lower than that of the EIS, and the schedule will be shorter. As such, PCH will amend its proposal to reflect the revised scope of work.
To follow up on our meeting with the Planning Department, PCH will draft a letter to the Planning Department seeking confirmation that the various campus uses are permitted within the subject zoning districts.
Page updated
Report abuse