On July 23, 2024, the Maui County Planning Commission unanimously recommended passage of Bill 9 and transmitted several comments to the Council including the following guidance:
“Requested that the Council consider excluding those properties that are community plan designated for hotel and those properties that are already partially hotel zoned.”
On May 22, 2025, the Planning Department confirmed that the Planning Commission’s comments related to the following properties:
Wailea Ekahi I
Wailea Ekahi III
Papakea
Hale Kaanapali
Maui Eldorado
The TIG's October 14, 2025 list of properties for rezoning then included all of the above-mentioned properties. Thus, the Planning Commission and the TIG agree that transient vacation rental should continue at those properties. What is the purpose of the Planning Commission if the Council simply rejects the guidance provided by the Commission? The 2024 comments from the Planning Commission were thoughtful and unanimous. Arbitrarily rejecting guidance from a subject matter expert advisory committee is not only bad form but legally risky in this circumstance.
Maui County’s consistent representations over the years that these five properties had hotel zoning and/or community plan designations creates a legal risk unique to these five properties. The County is particularly susceptible to as-applied challenges if these five properties are not excluded from Bill 9 through an amendment. The County would then have to explain why it represented for years that these properties had hotel zoning and community plan designations. The County's addition of a disclaimer for the first time in 2024 on the list of properties allowed to short-term rent is excellent evidence that Maui County is well aware of the legal risk associated with its representations and attempted to disclaim those risks. This is the kind of fact pattern that a trial lawyer loves to see, unless of course you are on the County side and then this it's a nightmare to defend against.
By including these five properties in the scope of Bill 9, the County is unnecessarily increasing its legal risk while disregarding the advice from its advisory committee. Excluding these five properties from Bill 9, as recommended by the Planning Commission, eliminates that specific risk and does nothing to compromise the integrity of Bill 9 or the work of the TIG, or subsequent rezoning efforts undertaken by the County at a later date. It is well-settled law that Council’s incorporation of guidance from the Planning Commission is well-within the Council’s legislative authority without any legitimate legal basis for a challenge. Additionally, excluding these properties from Bill 9 honors the concept of fairness as the County represented for years that these properties had hotel zoning and community plan designations.
Please exclude the following properties from Bill 9: Wailea Ekahi I, Wailea Ekahi III, Papakea, Hale Kaanapali, and Maui Eldorado.
Noelani
On July 23, 2024, the Maui County Planning Commission unanimously recommended passage of Bill 9 and transmitted several comments to the Council including the following guidance:
“Requested that the Council consider excluding those properties that are community plan designated for hotel and those properties that are already partially hotel zoned.”
On May 22, 2025, the Planning Department confirmed that the Planning Commission’s comments related to the following properties:
Wailea Ekahi I
Wailea Ekahi III
Papakea
Hale Kaanapali
Maui Eldorado
The TIG's October 14, 2025 list of properties for rezoning then included all of the above-mentioned properties. Thus, the Planning Commission and the TIG agree that transient vacation rental should continue at those properties. What is the purpose of the Planning Commission if the Council simply rejects the guidance provided by the Commission? The 2024 comments from the Planning Commission were thoughtful and unanimous. Arbitrarily rejecting guidance from a subject matter expert advisory committee is not only bad form but legally risky in this circumstance.
Maui County’s consistent representations over the years that these five properties had hotel zoning and/or community plan designations creates a legal risk unique to these five properties. The County is particularly susceptible to as-applied challenges if these five properties are not excluded from Bill 9 through an amendment. The County would then have to explain why it represented for years that these properties had hotel zoning and community plan designations. The County's addition of a disclaimer for the first time in 2024 on the list of properties allowed to short-term rent is excellent evidence that Maui County is well aware of the legal risk associated with its representations and attempted to disclaim those risks. This is the kind of fact pattern that a trial lawyer loves to see, unless of course you are on the County side and then this it's a nightmare to defend against.
By including these five properties in the scope of Bill 9, the County is unnecessarily increasing its legal risk while disregarding the advice from its advisory committee. Excluding these five properties from Bill 9, as recommended by the Planning Commission, eliminates that specific risk and does nothing to compromise the integrity of Bill 9 or the work of the TIG, or subsequent rezoning efforts undertaken by the County at a later date. It is well-settled law that Council’s incorporation of guidance from the Planning Commission is well-within the Council’s legislative authority without any legitimate legal basis for a challenge. Additionally, excluding these properties from Bill 9 honors the concept of fairness as the County represented for years that these properties had hotel zoning and community plan designations.
Please exclude the following properties from Bill 9: Wailea Ekahi I, Wailea Ekahi III, Papakea, Hale Kaanapali, and Maui Eldorado.