Maui County Council – Confirmation of Planning Director Jacky Takakura
The key structural issue in Maui County’s development approval system is the distinction between ministerial review by the Department of Public Works and discretionary review by the Department of Planning under the Special Management Area (SMA) law.
These two functions operate under different legal authorities, and the gap between them has created a loophole that developers can exploit.
This issue is directly relevant to the Council’s consideration of the next Planning Director because closing this loophole requires leadership and coordination between departments.
Ministerial vs. Discretionary Authority
The Department of Public Works primarily performs ministerial approvals.
Ministerial review means that if an application meets the minimum objective standards written in the code, the agency must approve the project.
Public Works cannot impose additional requirements beyond those standards.
If a project meets these technical standards, Public Works is legally obligated to approve it.
Public Works cannot deny a project simply because it raises environmental, safety, or policy concerns.
By contrast, the Department of Planning performs discretionary review under the Special Management Area law, implementing Hawaiʻi’s Coastal Zone Management Act.
Planning evaluates environmental impacts, shoreline impacts, infrastructure capacity, public safety, and community character.
Planning may impose conditions of approval beyond minimum code requirements.
Examples include:
• fire hydrants or emergency access improvements
• coastal setbacks
• drainage mitigation
• infrastructure upgrades
• shoreline protection
• limits on building scale or intensity
These conditions are legally binding because they are attached to the project’s SMA permit or exemption.
The Structural Enforcement Gap
The loophole arises because subdivision and infrastructure plans later submitted to Public Works are not always routed back to Planning for verification against SMA conditions.
The process can look like this:
A developer obtains an SMA permit or exemption with conditions.
Later the developer submits subdivision or infrastructure plans to Public Works.
Public Works reviews those plans only against engineering standards.
The plans may omit discretionary conditions previously imposed by Planning.
Because Public Works operates ministerially, it approves the plans if they meet minimum standards.
If the plans are not returned to Planning for verification, the SMA conditions may never be confirmed or enforced.
This creates a structural enforcement gap.
The Problem Is Worse for SMA Exemptions
The risk is greater when projects receive SMA exemptions or minor SMA permits, where:
• there may be no Planning Commission review
• oversight is limited
• enforcement relies heavily on developer representations
If projects then proceed through Public Works approvals without verification against SMA conditions, those conditions can effectively disappear.
Public Safety Implications
This gap can affect critical public safety infrastructure.
Conditions intended to protect infrastructure capacity or emergency response can be lost during later approvals.
In at least one documented instance in West Maui, a fire hydrant required as a condition in an SMA permit was later removed during the subdivision approval process.
The hydrant requirement appeared in the Planning Department’s SMA approval.
However, when subdivision plans moved through Public Works, the requirement disappeared.
There is no public record explaining the change and no indication that Planning approved it.
Because no agency verified the plans against the SMA approval, the hydrant was never installed.
This demonstrates that the enforcement gap is not theoretical.
Relevance After the Lahaina Fire
After the Lahaina wildfire disaster, the adequacy of fire infrastructure and emergency access has become a critical concern.
However, because the State quickly negotiated a global settlement framework, there was no full discovery process examining Maui County’s permitting history.
Discovery could have required production of decades of:
• SMA permits
• subdivision approvals
• infrastructure plans
• correspondence between Planning and Public Works
Such a review might have revealed how often safety conditions imposed during planning review were later omitted during ministerial approvals.
That systemic review never occurred.
As a result, the public still does not know how many instances may exist where required fire hydrants or emergency access improvements were never installed.
Given the devastating loss of life in Lahaina, that unanswered question should concern everyone.
Legal Representations in the Christopher Salem Case
Another troubling dimension emerged during litigation involving former Maui County employee Christopher Salem.
In that case, County attorneys argued that conditions attached to an SMA permit do not independently control Public Works subdivision approvals, and that Public Works approval indicates the developer has satisfied applicable conditions.
This position is problematic.
Public Works approvals are ministerial and limited to engineering standards such as grading, drainage, and infrastructure layout.
Public Works does not evaluate environmental mitigation, coastal protections, or discretionary safety conditions imposed under SMA law. Those responsibilities belong to the Planning Department.
If Public Works approval is treated as proof that SMA conditions were satisfied, the enforcement gap is effectively hidden.
The result is circular logic:
Planning imposes conditions.
Later plans omit them.
Public Works approves the plans.
The County then claims those conditions were satisfied.
But in reality they may never have been verified.
Example: The Napili “Monster House”
The Napili project widely known as the “monster house” illustrates how multiple parts of the permitting system may have been manipulated.
Questions surrounding that project include:
• whether the structure should have qualified for an SMA exemption as a single-family home
• whether planning conditions were later modified or ignored
• whether infrastructure commitments made during early approvals were consistent with plans later approved by Public Works
During construction, Maui inspectors issued Stop Work Orders for violations including height and scale limits.
Under normal enforcement procedures this would trigger a formal Notice of Violation allowing Planning Commission review.
Instead, former Planning Director Michele McLean resolved the matter through a private letter to the developer, and no formal violation was issued.
Without a Notice of Violation, the matter never came before the Planning Commission and the public had no opportunity to review the resolution.
Because the incoming Planning Director served as a deputy director during this period, it is reasonable for the Council to ask whether similar enforcement practices will continue.
County Code Already Requires Verification
Maui County Code already requires Public Works approvals to conform to Planning approvals.
Maui County Code §19.510.090(B)(2) states that no permit or certificate of occupancy may be issued by Public Works unless the development plan has been approved by the Planning Director and conforms to the project master plan.
In other words, the code already establishes a two-step process:
Planning approves the development plan and attaches conditions.
Public Works verifies that later permits conform to that plan.
If subdivision plans are not verified against Planning approvals, the process described in the code is not being implemented.
The Question for the New Planning Director
The question before this Council is therefore straightforward:
Will the next Planning Director require that subdivision approvals reviewed by Public Works be verified against the conditions imposed under SMA review?
Or will the current system continue — one where discretionary planning conditions can quietly disappear during later ministerial approvals?
Closing this enforcement gap would be a simple administrative reform with significant implications for environmental protection, infrastructure integrity, and public safety.
It is a question the next Planning Director should be asked to answer directly.
Aloha Committee Chair Batangan, Vice-Chair U’u-Hodgins, and Committee Members:
I am submitting testimony, on my own behalf, in support of approving Resolution 26-38; the appointment of Jacalyn M.C. Takakura as the Director of Planning.
I have known, and previously worked with, Jacky for many years, and she has always impressed me with her work ethic, ability to communicate effectively with staff, government officials, and the public, and tenacity to get through the most difficult of decisions using thoughtful, sound and objective reasoning.
Jacky will be a welcomed and qualified leader to this position. She is approachable, pleasant, and has the technical planning and Maui county government foundation to effectively maneuver through the many demands this position requires. She has been in the department for a good number of years, serving in various positions and divisions including that of deputy director. She also obtained a Professional Planning Certificate from the University of Hawaii, Department of Urban and Regional Planning; and this she did all on her own time and accord in order to garner a more formal education on planning principles. This is just one of the many ways Jacky will go above and beyond to expand her knowledge base and understanding of planning fundamentals in order to bring expertise and integrity to our community. She is very familiar and appreciates the various facets and responsibilities of all the department’s divisions, as well as its inner workings, and has the leadership skills the department needs and has already been witness to.
There is much more that I could positively say about Jacky, however I believe her personality, experience, your familiarity with her, and seeing her in action over the course of her county employment both with the Department of Planning and the Department of Water Supply, is truly enough to assure you that approving her appointment is an easy one, or as I like to say, “Duck soup!”. :)
Speaking from firsthand experience, while this position and its leader will never be able to make decisions that appease everyone, Jacky is certainly someone who will do all that she can to work collaboratively with both public and private individuals and entities in order to come to the best possible (and many times compromised) outcome for all. She has demonstrated this to be true time and time again.
Written Testimony from Sam Small
Maui County Council – Confirmation of Planning Director Jacky Takakura
The key structural issue in Maui County’s development approval system is the distinction between ministerial review by the Department of Public Works and discretionary review by the Department of Planning under the Special Management Area (SMA) law.
These two functions operate under different legal authorities, and the gap between them has created a loophole that developers can exploit.
This issue is directly relevant to the Council’s consideration of the next Planning Director because closing this loophole requires leadership and coordination between departments.
Ministerial vs. Discretionary Authority
The Department of Public Works primarily performs ministerial approvals.
Ministerial review means that if an application meets the minimum objective standards written in the code, the agency must approve the project.
Public Works cannot impose additional requirements beyond those standards.
Typical Public Works review includes:
• subdivision approvals
• grading and drainage plans
• roadway construction standards
• infrastructure layout
• stormwater compliance
• parking layouts
• utility placement
If a project meets these technical standards, Public Works is legally obligated to approve it.
Public Works cannot deny a project simply because it raises environmental, safety, or policy concerns.
By contrast, the Department of Planning performs discretionary review under the Special Management Area law, implementing Hawaiʻi’s Coastal Zone Management Act.
Planning evaluates environmental impacts, shoreline impacts, infrastructure capacity, public safety, and community character.
Planning may impose conditions of approval beyond minimum code requirements.
Examples include:
• fire hydrants or emergency access improvements
• coastal setbacks
• drainage mitigation
• infrastructure upgrades
• shoreline protection
• limits on building scale or intensity
These conditions are legally binding because they are attached to the project’s SMA permit or exemption.
The Structural Enforcement Gap
The loophole arises because subdivision and infrastructure plans later submitted to Public Works are not always routed back to Planning for verification against SMA conditions.
The process can look like this:
A developer obtains an SMA permit or exemption with conditions.
Later the developer submits subdivision or infrastructure plans to Public Works.
Public Works reviews those plans only against engineering standards.
The plans may omit discretionary conditions previously imposed by Planning.
Because Public Works operates ministerially, it approves the plans if they meet minimum standards.
If the plans are not returned to Planning for verification, the SMA conditions may never be confirmed or enforced.
This creates a structural enforcement gap.
The Problem Is Worse for SMA Exemptions
The risk is greater when projects receive SMA exemptions or minor SMA permits, where:
• there may be no Planning Commission review
• oversight is limited
• enforcement relies heavily on developer representations
If projects then proceed through Public Works approvals without verification against SMA conditions, those conditions can effectively disappear.
Public Safety Implications
This gap can affect critical public safety infrastructure.
Conditions intended to protect infrastructure capacity or emergency response can be lost during later approvals.
Examples include:
• required fire hydrants
• emergency access improvements
• drainage infrastructure
• coastal mitigation measures
In at least one documented instance in West Maui, a fire hydrant required as a condition in an SMA permit was later removed during the subdivision approval process.
The hydrant requirement appeared in the Planning Department’s SMA approval.
However, when subdivision plans moved through Public Works, the requirement disappeared.
There is no public record explaining the change and no indication that Planning approved it.
Because no agency verified the plans against the SMA approval, the hydrant was never installed.
This demonstrates that the enforcement gap is not theoretical.
Relevance After the Lahaina Fire
After the Lahaina wildfire disaster, the adequacy of fire infrastructure and emergency access has become a critical concern.
However, because the State quickly negotiated a global settlement framework, there was no full discovery process examining Maui County’s permitting history.
Discovery could have required production of decades of:
• SMA permits
• subdivision approvals
• infrastructure plans
• correspondence between Planning and Public Works
Such a review might have revealed how often safety conditions imposed during planning review were later omitted during ministerial approvals.
That systemic review never occurred.
As a result, the public still does not know how many instances may exist where required fire hydrants or emergency access improvements were never installed.
Given the devastating loss of life in Lahaina, that unanswered question should concern everyone.
Legal Representations in the Christopher Salem Case
Another troubling dimension emerged during litigation involving former Maui County employee Christopher Salem.
In that case, County attorneys argued that conditions attached to an SMA permit do not independently control Public Works subdivision approvals, and that Public Works approval indicates the developer has satisfied applicable conditions.
This position is problematic.
Public Works approvals are ministerial and limited to engineering standards such as grading, drainage, and infrastructure layout.
Public Works does not evaluate environmental mitigation, coastal protections, or discretionary safety conditions imposed under SMA law. Those responsibilities belong to the Planning Department.
If Public Works approval is treated as proof that SMA conditions were satisfied, the enforcement gap is effectively hidden.
The result is circular logic:
Planning imposes conditions.
Later plans omit them.
Public Works approves the plans.
The County then claims those conditions were satisfied.
But in reality they may never have been verified.
Example: The Napili “Monster House”
The Napili project widely known as the “monster house” illustrates how multiple parts of the permitting system may have been manipulated.
Questions surrounding that project include:
• whether the structure should have qualified for an SMA exemption as a single-family home
• whether planning conditions were later modified or ignored
• whether infrastructure commitments made during early approvals were consistent with plans later approved by Public Works
During construction, Maui inspectors issued Stop Work Orders for violations including height and scale limits.
Under normal enforcement procedures this would trigger a formal Notice of Violation allowing Planning Commission review.
Instead, former Planning Director Michele McLean resolved the matter through a private letter to the developer, and no formal violation was issued.
Without a Notice of Violation, the matter never came before the Planning Commission and the public had no opportunity to review the resolution.
Because the incoming Planning Director served as a deputy director during this period, it is reasonable for the Council to ask whether similar enforcement practices will continue.
County Code Already Requires Verification
Maui County Code already requires Public Works approvals to conform to Planning approvals.
Maui County Code §19.510.090(B)(2) states that no permit or certificate of occupancy may be issued by Public Works unless the development plan has been approved by the Planning Director and conforms to the project master plan.
In other words, the code already establishes a two-step process:
Planning approves the development plan and attaches conditions.
Public Works verifies that later permits conform to that plan.
If subdivision plans are not verified against Planning approvals, the process described in the code is not being implemented.
The Question for the New Planning Director
The question before this Council is therefore straightforward:
Will the next Planning Director require that subdivision approvals reviewed by Public Works be verified against the conditions imposed under SMA review?
Or will the current system continue — one where discretionary planning conditions can quietly disappear during later ministerial approvals?
Closing this enforcement gap would be a simple administrative reform with significant implications for environmental protection, infrastructure integrity, and public safety.
It is a question the next Planning Director should be asked to answer directly.
March 7, 2026
Aloha Committee Chair Batangan, Vice-Chair U’u-Hodgins, and Committee Members:
I am submitting testimony, on my own behalf, in support of approving Resolution 26-38; the appointment of Jacalyn M.C. Takakura as the Director of Planning.
I have known, and previously worked with, Jacky for many years, and she has always impressed me with her work ethic, ability to communicate effectively with staff, government officials, and the public, and tenacity to get through the most difficult of decisions using thoughtful, sound and objective reasoning.
Jacky will be a welcomed and qualified leader to this position. She is approachable, pleasant, and has the technical planning and Maui county government foundation to effectively maneuver through the many demands this position requires. She has been in the department for a good number of years, serving in various positions and divisions including that of deputy director. She also obtained a Professional Planning Certificate from the University of Hawaii, Department of Urban and Regional Planning; and this she did all on her own time and accord in order to garner a more formal education on planning principles. This is just one of the many ways Jacky will go above and beyond to expand her knowledge base and understanding of planning fundamentals in order to bring expertise and integrity to our community. She is very familiar and appreciates the various facets and responsibilities of all the department’s divisions, as well as its inner workings, and has the leadership skills the department needs and has already been witness to.
There is much more that I could positively say about Jacky, however I believe her personality, experience, your familiarity with her, and seeing her in action over the course of her county employment both with the Department of Planning and the Department of Water Supply, is truly enough to assure you that approving her appointment is an easy one, or as I like to say, “Duck soup!”. :)
Speaking from firsthand experience, while this position and its leader will never be able to make decisions that appease everyone, Jacky is certainly someone who will do all that she can to work collaboratively with both public and private individuals and entities in order to come to the best possible (and many times compromised) outcome for all. She has demonstrated this to be true time and time again.
Mahalo for your time and consideration,
Kathleen Ross Aoki